Editorial

Chrome OS: It's a pretty big deal

Google wants to make the Internet your computer. Or, to use more modern IT parlance, Google wants to use the Internet as their giant desktop virtualization server. Google’s marketing spot for Chrome OS assumes that we should be confused as to the nature of this new piece of hardware/software, but desktop virtualization is really all it is. This isn’t a bad thing, either. In fact, I’m convinced that all the talk and success over the past 5-7 years in virtualization and cloud computing is really converging for the consumer into what Google is calling the “Chromebook.” The main idea behind Chrome OS is what Google has really had in mind since it started in the web services industry. They are willing to bet an entire operating system and hardware line that the average consumer can do anything they need on a computer inside the Chrome web browser. It’s a ballsy claim, and potentially hugely disruptive, yet Google seems supremely confident in its browser’s capability to provide every essential service without requiring an underlying OS like Windows or Mac OS. If the hypothesis holds true, some very exciting possibilities in computing can become a full-on revolution.

With Chrome OS comes a very interesting Hardware as a Service model that many corporate IT departments are salivating over. Not only do they offer the hardware at a monthly per user rate, but the contract will also entitle the users to free hardware upgrades as they’re released. Given that the software is uniform and not local, swapping hardware is as simple as reseating some cables and logging in. Add to this the freedom from many menial management and maintenance tasks that are the bane of any IT administrator’s existence, and Google is offering a sweet, sweet deal to any IT shop. Any company looking at desktop virtualization or other alternatives to the traditional enterprise hardware/software configuration model will have to look at Google first.

It’s a pretty optimistic outlook (a dirty word in Chrome OS land) on the potential for Google to succeed in this endeavor, but there obvious issues that need to be addressed.

The first hurdle that Google has to clear is the skepticism that people feel about doing everything in a browser. Many people immediately throw the claim out as nonsense and an interesting marketing ploy. However, with a little digital introspection, you’ll probably surprise yourself at how little you actually do outside of an Internet browser. The big three activities, email, word processing, and social networking, are most definitely done in a browser. Microsoft has made it very clear in the past year or two, with the release of Office 2010 and Office 365, that it is trending towards the cloud. While not everybody is willing to embrace a cloud Office suite just yet, it’s right around the corner for many. With Amazon, Google, and Apple all releasing cloud storage and streaming for media, this function will also be browser-based in the near future. Businesses are accepting the idea of desktop virtualization, which includes application virtualization in many cases, in steadily increasing numbers. The idea of getting having hosted and managed desktop pseudo-virtualization in a business will be a big deal to many IT shops. Google has already announced (at the Google I/O keynote) that they are working heavily with Citrix to enable enterprise business applications to virtualize to Chrome OS. While it won’t fit every business’s every varied need, it covers a wide swath of corporate IT. Virtualization vendors now have the capability to deliver graphics intensive engineering tools like AutoCAD over a network link, so the idea of a biomedical engineer designing a limb on a Chromebook isn’t as farfetched as you would think.

This leaves the gamers and the hobbyist/enthusiast crowd, who are still very much dependent on top of the line hardware and custom parts. However, this crowd was never the target market and, frankly, don’t make up a big enough portion of the PC market (compared to, say, the corporate IT market) for Google to worry about them.

Google is also letting the developers really decide the success or failure of the platform. This strategy has seen varied mileage on the Android platform, where one the biggest accolade and detraction of the platform is the preponderance of apps in the Android Market and the bustling development community. Chrome OS will live and die on the quality of its web apps. On Android, you have a phone, and then you have the apps that support the phone, and the solid suite of Google Apps. With Chrome OS, web apps are the platform. Without quality web apps, you’re literally just buying a stand-alone browser, the fear that many already have about the platform. A good marketing campaign will show off the potential that web apps bring to the market, and expect Google to be pushing this point hard.

The most important question that needs to be asked is whether or not the world is constantly connected enough to warrant a PC purchase that basically depends on always-on connectivity to work as designed. Yes, there is offline mode for many of its functions, but nobody will be buying a Chromebook for its offline mode. While Google is partnering with carriers to provide free WiFi up to a limit, is 3G enough to power the average user’s digital life? Sure, it works when you’re in a connectivity pickle and you absolutely need connectivity, but for an entire PC platform to run off of Internet connectivity, one has to ask if 3G is up for the challenge. On a phone, 3G works for most tasks. On a PC, it will be up to the developers to properly harness the general lack of broadband speed to power their apps. Should Google have waited until 4G wireless services become standard in most urban areas? Maybe. Depending on 3G is a gamble, but it’s currently the only gamble available.

The stage is set for a Chromebook, that’s for sure. However, there are still many variables that could send this idea the sad way of Wave, Gears, and countless other cool but flawed products in Google’s history. The Cr-48, the prototype test unit send out to thousands of pilot program inductees, was a buggy device. It suffered from crashes, incompatibility with web services (like Flash), a subpar trackpad, and hardware that could barely play 1080p video without stuttering. While there was no shortage of complaints about the Cr-48, it was after all a prototype, and should not be representative of the final product, That being said, if the issues aren’t fixed for the June 15 rollout of the Acer and Samsung Chrome OS offerings, Google’s plan for penetration of the OS market could come to grinding halt. In fact, given the amount of time and resources that have been invested in this project, and the potential inroads that a successful Chrome OS introduces to the industry, June 15 may be one of the most important dates in Google history.

Chrome OS is a brand new platform and a revolutionary idea, and doubts will fly. Ultimately, however, Chrome OS will make its mark on the OS duopoly currently populated by Mac OS and Windows (Linux also, to a very minor extent). Its timing may a bit a bit early for many, but Google is confident that wireless connectivity and consumer confidence will catch up in time. Those are some famous last words for many promising Google products, but Chrome OS is running off the momentum generated by the Android explosion and the global proliferation of cloud and virtual services. It’s filling a space in corporate IT that business leaders will champion as cost-effective and a graceful way to manage hardware and software. As long as Google can work out the kinks of the pilot program and deliver on the promises made at developer conferences and marketing campaigns, the Chromebook could very well be the next major evolution in computing.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Amazon.com CEO hints about future tablet device

Next Story

Wargame: European Escalation announced

146 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Dashel said,
Citrix would be the real winner if this came to pass.

Absolutely wrong . The consumer will be the winner if Chrome OS is successful. Competition from Google means Microsoft has to step up it's game when it comes to technology and pricing.

Google had their chance to WOW me..and they failed miserably. I hated Chrome (browser) and now I hate Chrome OS. And now they want to have MY files on THEIR servers? As in...ALL my files? Mp3s, isos, games, docs, love-letters..everything?

Um...no?

They can get stuffed.

If you don't have to maintain sensitive data, and it's mostly about mobile collaboration for your company this might make sense. But for anyone who deals with payment cards of any sort or requires social security numbers, these will be off the table. This might make a dent in OLPC, but for enterprise desktop replacements I'd say VDI + iPad2 has a much better chance of getting traction and will have a higher end user satisfaction level. Enterprise IT is not going to embrace storing it's data on Google's cloud with their many privacy issues, sorry.

I'm sure Chrome OS is good at what it does, but living in a broadband cap laden country (Australia) and where the internet is not reliable, I don't like the idea of a computer that requires a constant internet connection to function. Maybe when the situation here in regards to the internet improve, I'll be more open to something like this. That is my 2 cents take with a grain of salt.

Supprised no one has mentioned piracy. With all these services running in the cloud this is going to greatly reduce software piracy and dare I say even eliminate it within their OS enviroment.

I think half the people who complain and say not to google OS is because they realise it threatens their jobs. IT being managed means less people needed at your offices, heck I would be worried too.

But anyway I personally think the big issue also is avalibility of data. Lets say I want to move to a Microsoft, IBM, Apple solution how do I get my data from one provider to another? Once your IN I bet it's hard to get out again. When data is held on my servers should some goverment agency want access to it they have to come to the site, with a hosted solution like it or not they just contact the host.

Ok.. now final question. How will this work with Bell 25GB cap and other internet bandwidth limitation. While other countries might be embracing open and limitless bandwidth, Canada is one of the worst country which is implementing internet bandwidth cap. so People don't cancel their overpriced and fat margined cable services in favor of internet.

Auditor said,
Ok.. now final question. How will this work with Bell 25GB cap and other internet bandwidth limitation. While other countries might be embracing open and limitless bandwidth, Canada is one of the worst country which is implementing internet bandwidth cap. so People don't cancel their overpriced and fat margined cable services in favor of internet.
Well then I'm afraid Canada just plain sucks in that case.

Great article, I will be buying a Chromebook to go along with my 7" Android Tablet I have Google all around! *types this from Google Chrome!*

Gonna be awesome to return to this page in 2 years time and PM all the (vehement) naysayers. Didn't Sean Connery teach ya to never say never?

Frankenchrist said,
Gonna be awesome to return to this page in 2 years time and PM all the (vehement) naysayers. Didn't Sean Connery teach ya to never say never?

Yes, and we all know how that worked out for Betamax, OnLive, Sony's minidisc, Napster, etc. King's get assassinated all the time. This one is no different.

It's simple, this is the android of the notebook/netbook market... It can be successful but it is a tight market to budge dependence on windows and it's applications. For the casual user wanting a mobile internet usage and not have to worry about size or battery it's perfect. I dunno how beneficial it'd be to business unless it's hooking into VM's it'd be impartial to useless besides managing office docs/invoicing type stuff etc. Think have the cake with no icing idea, sufficient and can be good but it's not as enjoyable as the full package/OS experience.

Digitalx said,
It's simple, this is the android of the notebook/netbook market... It can be successful but it is a tight market to budge dependence on windows and it's applications. For the casual user wanting a mobile internet usage and not have to worry about size or battery it's perfect. I dunno how beneficial it'd be to business unless it's hooking into VM's it'd be impartial to useless besides managing office docs/invoicing type stuff etc. Think have the cake with no icing idea, sufficient and can be good but it's not as enjoyable as the full package/OS experience.

It's why I used the word *niche* (really, a hyperniche) to describe Chromebooks (and even in enterprises) - it targets existing thin client solutions (Citrix, for example) and XEN/XenWorks, and it's trying to get in before 7 ThinPC can. In marked contrast to ChromeOS, 7 ThinPC can be pre-deployed (same method that Chromebooks are) or deployed via existing means within an enterprise (network deployment methods can be used; heck, if worst comes to worst, *sneakernet deployment*, such as disk images and USB sticks, work as well, and on *existing hardware* - a lot of which is incompatible with ChromeOS). Even scarier, 7 ThinPC can be deployed in SMBs and even home users (I've been testing out the current CTP, and quite bluntly, it's a Home Basic/Starter killer, *and* an XP killer) and is therefore several legs up on ChromeOS, even on the same hardware. 7 ThinPC scares the bejeebers out of Google Chrome, and it should.

Awesome, another version of the 'age of terminal/internet computing' article.

Everyone good the previous versions of these myths: 1997, 1988, etc (And in the 70s/80s mainframe and dumb terminal computing was the best we could do, not that it was the best.)

Google is right about online services, but STILL doesn't get why the larger base principle of non-localized computing is a regression and will not work.

When you have localized computing power like we have today, there are no server side solutions that can compete, especially as more and more users start saturating the 'cloud' for more powerful processing needs.

We can already do remote 3D gaming, but the problem is once the servers hit a relatively small number of users, it all becomes unusable and a bad experience.

Microsoft gets this, Google does not. Google continues forward as Oracle and Sun and others of the past, make the same mistakes when underestimating localized computing power, and online access, even as rich as online bandwidth and connectivity is today.

In a large city, we have 3g at minimum and usually 4g or more everywhere. However, even now these networks and the 3g and even the 4g space is being saturated, and if shoving more users to pushing and pulling more data 'for no real reason' over these networks all the time continues to increase, it makes everyone's computing experience slower and slower. And this is not even considering the areas that don't have the 'connectivity' and even people that live in places with good connectivity will visit and be in the other areas. Just traveling a lot through airports and cities, depending on data connections is STILL a major problem, even when you have devices capable of wifi, 3g, 4g and various multi-technology modes of these technoloies.

Trying to make an OS and user's data dependant on connectivity and server congestion is still just as insane as it was 10, 20, 30 years ago... 20 and 30 years ago, it made more sense, as mainframes and dumb terminals were the only way to offer 'cloud' solutions and centralized management. This is not true now, nor was it even true in the 90s when Internet Terminals were the buzz.

I find people that truly buy into the Google marketing hype about these concepts to be silly, and have reflection of how technology progression works and the history that SPECIFICALLY teaches us the mistakes of the past.

Having online services and syncronized content and more than what we are doing now is smart, ask Microsoft, but using an OS that is dependant on online access and these features is a disconnect between the difference of a device that is designed to be connected, like a phone, and computing in general that cannot and should not require connectivity.

Doing photoshop on a server is not a great idea, running Crysis on a server is also not a good idea. (And both are easily possible now, with good performance, until you lose connectivity or saturate the servers with user demands, and this happens fast.) Even online gaming, is hard, and requires the local OS and device to supply 99.999% of the computing power.

If anyone doubts how far the server side computing power and connectivity needs to advance befor this is even considered 'viable', only needs to look at technologies designed for this now, like MMOs, as they can barely meet basic user demands, and the data going over the network is 'tiny' in comparison, and the server usage needs are tiny as they are not much more than databases. Yet ask Sony or Blizzard how massive the computing and connectivity needed just for these 'light' services require already for a few 1,000 concurrent users. Even WoW and Blizzard would come to itse knees if fraction of their players signed in and wanted to play at the same time.

PS, The Sony outages are another good example and reason why full non-localized computing is a mistake.


Google are coming at this from an angle of being an online and service company, they don't really understand the technology outside of this mindset. Microsoft is not stupid, and their R&D people are not stupid, even if their sales, marketing and CEO is stupid. And they understand these concepts and realize how horrible of an experience it would be for users, or they would be doing it already, as they could have 'Windows Online Only' OS computers.

Google has gotten a taste that they feel validates this shove with Android, but it is running on a phone that is designed to only work 'online' by definition of its basic usage.

They don't see the users like the majority of everyone here that has been a tiny distance outside of a data connection area in their car, and can't see any navigation or mapping data because Android sucks at basic caching of things it should and needs to phone home and can't to tell you where you are. (Or when trying to use 'voice' features in Android in your car, that ALSO depends on connectivity and sending the processing to their servers for recognition. This fails when connectivity is gone or saturated, and makes most users want to stomp on their phones when it is important.)

And the idea of doing the same with a non-phone based device and structuring a 'cobbled' OS around it is insane.

(Let alone the shortcomings of Android and Chrome OS that are quickly apparent in terms of 'stability' and performance. Android phones are notorious for driver issues, where the users lose Wifi and can't get back to the cellular data network or lose the bluetooth, and technical users see this and know why the base kernel in Android has issues when trying to provide seamless features, yet still not even be able to keep drivers and OS services operating properly.)

There is a reason why Microsoft Office running on a Mac or Windows has 1000 times the features of GoogleDocs and is 100x faster, and will ALWAYS be, as technology increases, these applications will too, and localized computing is just powerful, easy, and cheap.

----

This whole concept is a bit like the Edison and Tesla differences in providing energy to homes. Both had good points, but the better technology concept failed, creating massive dependency on an electric grid with centralized distribution that is inefficient, expensive, and cumbersome.

However, even Tesla realized these shortcomings and was working on different ways to provide electricity without an 'active' centralized distribution model to replace his own AC based model that could provide 'massive' power if needed, but when consumed with a lot of subscribers, no longer could even offer the advantages that made it popular.

Today we are still seeing the entire energy technology world trying to 'fix' the errors of the centralized electricity distribution model we live by. This includes more and easier ways for users to generate localized energy, as needed, easily and cheaply. (Solar, Wind, etc.)

If we were 'bound' to the rules of Tesla centralized electrical model, which is what Chrome OS demands users to do, we would not be able to use battery devices, or have AC Electrical outlets in our cars, so even in the massive failure of the centralized electricity model, we have excpets that at least allow people to set outside the 'grid' and still have the same functionality.

Chrome OS does not even allow for this 'bandaid' approach to compensate for the online all the time model that is impossible to sustain and wll make people that get outside the 'connectivity grid' curse the device as it is as useless as a Toaster Oven out in the desert with no place to plug it in.

So ya, terminal computing, internet computing, and more so cloud computing have their place and will be more a part of our lives, but when we can't 'leave' the grid to use our devices whatsoever, they are worthless, and people would be better off with a company like Apple or Microsoft that understands this, and run OS X or Windows where they work with the online services and cloud and online storage just as WELL as Chrome OS does, but don't depend on 'online' for performance or basic functionality, and intelligently sync the online and cloud data when reconnected to the 'grid'.


Wow, this whole concept, and the article buying into Google's ignorance is scary...

thenetavenger said,

PS, This line from the article made me spit my coffee...

"Chrome OS is a brand new platform and a revolutionary idea"

Well it is not a new platform; however, using the term 'revolutionary' is beyond hyperbole.

The platform model is not new, the OS technologies are not new, the base model of computing is not new, the mobile device stategy is not new. (And yet the author sees this as new and 'revolutionary'.)

Wow, just freaking wow... Well, like many others, it is time to move on from Neowin to a site that offers real technology news and debate of opinion, and not just some idiot rambling about something they think is cool, with no perspective on how it even relates to the industry, does no research to support or refute the concepts, and has opinions that makes OS theorist and engineers like myself, want to freaking slap them for trying to shove non-informed, technically unsound concepts on the population.

Sorry Neowin, I'm don't think I can suffer this dribble any longer.

thenetavenger said,

"Chrome OS is a brand new platform and a revolutionary idea"

Well it is not a new platform; however, using the term 'revolutionary' is beyond hyperbole.

The platform model is not new, the OS technologies are not new, the base model of computing is not new, the mobile device stategy is not new. (And yet the author sees this as new and 'revolutionary'.)

Just out of curiosity, what kind of a platform would you consider "new" and/or "revolutionary"?

MS Lose32 said,
Just out of curiosity, what kind of a platform would you consider "new" and/or "revolutionary"?

Something that is actually new and revolutionary...

Something that hasn't been done before

zombieChan said,

Something that is actually new and revolutionary...

Something that hasn't been done before

Well it is the most dramatic departure from the traditional OS model that the world has seen in a decade or two so maybe its just a little bit revolutionary?

MS Lose32 said,
Well it is the most dramatic departure from the traditional OS model that the world has seen in a decade or two so maybe its just a little bit revolutionary?

Nope.

MS Lose32 said,
Just out of curiosity, what kind of a platform would you consider "new" and/or "revolutionary"?

Something Microsoft came up with most likely.

Seems like the author doesn't have a firm grasp on the term "virtualization." Web apps are not equivalent to desktop virtualization.

I wish people would put the Chrome vs Windows a rest. Windows is a great product. I have it on 3 of my machines. Two desktops and one netbook have a Windows 7 license. However, Windows sucks on my netbook and this is where Chrome comes in. It's only meant to compete with netbooks.

It just so happens that it competes with Windows on the desktop end because of the Chrome Box. The sad fact is most people in the work place only need a computer for email and a couple of letters and Excel sheets. The Chrome Box is perfect for them.

Sadly, Microsoft needed to make something more compatible (meaning fast) on netbooks. Also they needed cheaper desktops running a slimmed down version of there OS for the majority of the business sector that I mentioned. Chrome will not replace those employees that do graphics, CAD or GIS.

We shall see how this plays out.

UndergroundWire said,
However, Windows sucks on my netbook and this is where Chrome comes in. It's only meant to compete with netbooks.

And why is that? I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on my 2009 netbook and it runs just fine after some tweaking. So what's your problem?

FarCry3r said,

And why is that? I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on my 2009 netbook and it runs just fine after some tweaking. So what's your problem?

Not my problem. Just the general con-senses with your average user. A netbook is supposed to be accessible. Yet Windows 7 Netbooks take a long time to boot up on an Atom processor. They are slow as hell, and have horrible video playback. I'm sorry but I got to play with the Chromebook and for its purpose runs perfectly smooth with my everyday browsing.

I use my Core i7 desktop when it's time to do the big work on it such as my CAD and GIS projects. But for sitting in front of the TV I enjoy the Chromebook and Motorola Xoom.

Microsoft failed in delivering a different OS for these low end machines. they really needed to invest in R&D for this. I am certain that when Windows 8 comes out, it will not exist on netbooks. By then, Microsoft will have figured the error of there ways and run some sort of Windows Phone 7 type OS on these netbooks or whatever is supposed to come out for the Microsoft tablet.

On a side note, I own a Motorola Xoom because of the reasons I mentioned. Since I am a tech junkie, on June 15 I will pick up the Samsung Chromebook.

No way in hell this will work. At least not on the scale they want it to. There's no way a browser can replace a desktop PC (or Apple, or whatever). There are people that do Autocad stuff, for example. How on earth will they do that on a browser?! Also gamers that play much more than just Angry Birds. The security and privacy issue will never go away, people feel much better (even if it's really not) with their stuff on local computers, or external storage, etc.

So I really don't think this will work.

This reminds me all too much of Wendy Wong's articales (more commentary disguised as articles) at Brothersoft - these are haters of the PC hardware platform in general (not just Microsoft).

ThinPC is also locally-deployable (in fact, the current deployment method for the CTP is a disk image/ISO) and is smaller than 7 Home Premium, but with most of its feature set. For that reason, I see ThinPC as an option not just in enterprises (as opposed to ChromeOS), but even for netbooks (not just as an option instead of Chrome, but as a Starter/Home Basic-killer, if not an XP-killer). Therefore, ThinPC is very much a threat to ChromeOS.

Second, as much as these folks hate the PC as a platform, it has gone exactly nowhere. The very reason that clouds are no threat to the PC goes back to the origination of the PC - one of the early uses for a PC was as a "thick terminal" in mainframe-hubbed networks (the father of the LAN). Therefore, if terminals (original ones) could not completely replace *thick clients* in the bad old days when screens were green and everything was text-based, why would a similar concept stand any chance now, with a far greater content variety?

Lastly, even Android (as useful as it is) is still a niche product/tool - it's not a be-all/end-all. There are things it still can't do as well as even a netbook; a known niche product, which remains underwhelming compared to even a budget/value desktop/notebook. It's still "horses for courses" - each type of product fits a specific usage pattern.

I'm curious about how Cloud computing will affect the proposal of tax on the internet. I don't know exactly how it would affect potential taxing, but somehow I see that there IS a possibly from a business or storage standpoint.

I have read Neowin for the last few years, and I keep coming to articles from this author and scratch my head and just say "WTF?" This instance brings me back around to that.

First of all, corporate IT departments are *not* looking for HaaS solutions. They are not "salivating" over it either. Cloud technology as a whole is something that everybody is investigating, but with patience. We already have hardware as a service in a sense, because every major organization leases desktop equipment to ensure a refresh cycle.

For most people in the corporate IT world, they look at Google's Chrome OS as an exercise to have Google show what cards they have rather than lay a bet down first. There is nothing Chrome OS does that a corporate IT department can't do themselves; Citrix is a common platform, and so is terminal services, and used frequently. The idea of updating whenever it wants and not being able to control that is also a problematic concern.

All in all, I'm frankly a bit tired of the articles from this author because they are either full of cheerleading, or jeering of one side or another. Editorials should have an opinion, but they should be based on a logical foundation of FACT. This is a common theme with the lack of research on the NFC payment article, the Windows Phone 7 failing article, and more.

If this is the best Neowin has to offer, then I have to laugh at the editorial content they think is good enough for the front page. It's really gone downhill, and I didn't think that Neowin would become the TMZ of the techsites, but apparently that's the role they are going for.

Hercules said,
I have read Neowin for the last few years, and I keep coming to articles from this author and scratch my head and just say "WTF?" This instance brings me back around to that.

First of all, corporate IT departments are *not* looking for HaaS solutions. They are not "salivating" over it either. Cloud technology as a whole is something that everybody is investigating, but with patience. We already have hardware as a service in a sense, because every major organization leases desktop equipment to ensure a refresh cycle.

For most people in the corporate IT world, they look at Google's Chrome OS as an exercise to have Google show what cards they have rather than lay a bet down first. There is nothing Chrome OS does that a corporate IT department can't do themselves; Citrix is a common platform, and so is terminal services, and used frequently. The idea of updating whenever it wants and not being able to control that is also a problematic concern.

All in all, I'm frankly a bit tired of the articles from this author because they are either full of cheerleading, or jeering of one side or another. Editorials should have an opinion, but they should be based on a logical foundation of FACT. This is a common theme with the lack of research on the NFC payment article, the Windows Phone 7 failing article, and more.

If this is the best Neowin has to offer, then I have to laugh at the editorial content they think is good enough for the front page. It's really gone downhill, and I didn't think that Neowin would become the TMZ of the techsites, but apparently that's the role they are going for.

+1 tbh, this is a waste of time and I would laugh at a company moving down this route really. Friedman have you ever actually working in a IT department in a large corp or have you ever been involved in that decision making process?
I suspect not otherwise you wouldnt have written this.
The only corps that will go for it is ones that get dupped into thinking this is a google PR move etc aka stupid upper management, they will throw their whole system out and suddenly realise how bad an idea that was....

To answer your questions, leasing != HaaS. Leasing is just renting equipment. An ideal HaaS solution would actually have the provider delivering and configuring hardware, repairing dead units, replacing old units at no cost, and ultimately be responsible for the uptime of the hardware, just like SaaS. Google hasn't promised all of that just yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of the contract.

There is also no PC that would work in a typical enterprise environment that comes out to the same price over 2-3 years. Netbooks/low-end notebooks fit the bill, but that's not what most corporations are buying/leasing. They also aren't replacing hardware with upgrades at no cost.

Your statement that an It department can do what Chrome OS does isn't correct, either. Either you can set up your own virtualization server/private cloud, or you can pay Google a relatively tiny fee to leverage the Internet to do the same thing, and with no maintenance from your own IT staff. Assuming they can get their support right, I totally understand why IT departments would be interested in this.

As to your other comments, an editorial doesn't have to line up with your personal beliefs. if you think the facts are wrong, point them out, and I/editorial staff will do our best to correct any missteps.

Tzvi Friedman said,
To answer your questions, leasing != HaaS. Leasing is just renting equipment. An ideal HaaS solution would actually have the provider delivering and configuring hardware, repairing dead units, replacing old units at no cost, and ultimately be responsible for the uptime of the hardware, just like SaaS. Google hasn't promised all of that just yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of the contract.

There is also no PC that would work in a typical enterprise environment that comes out to the same price over 2-3 years. Netbooks/low-end notebooks fit the bill, but that's not what most corporations are buying/leasing. They also aren't replacing hardware with upgrades at no cost.

Your statement that an It department can do what Chrome OS does isn't correct, either. Either you can set up your own virtualization server/private cloud, or you can pay Google a relatively tiny fee to leverage the Internet to do the same thing, and with no maintenance from your own IT staff. Assuming they can get their support right, I totally understand why IT departments would be interested in this.

As to your other comments, an editorial doesn't have to line up with your personal beliefs. if you think the facts are wrong, point them out, and I/editorial staff will do our best to correct any missteps.


Again, do some research.

Look up V Blocks. You can buy a "cloud in a box" that is easily managed. HP sells similar stuff. As for leasing = HaaS, I never made that point, I just said with the way amoritization works in most orgs, it works out to the same thing for them. Until you change financial models inside companies and the idea of "billback", you won't sell the benefit of HaaS. Any competent operations manager would have to build in the risk percentages into the project plan to bring on something like ChromeOS, and when you start to actually assign a number to the risk, then show the cost differentiation, it is simply not worth it.

Editorials aren't about getting your beliefs in line with mine. It's about presenting the facts in a way that you make your case. You have put up several articles that show little ability to research, employ "scare" tactics, and honestly, in the spirit of what Neowin has been in the past, really have no business even being displayed. Hence my TMZ reference.

That said, if this is the type of research you do (very little, apparently) to use some buzz words and seemingly without much exposure to what a real corporate IT department runs like, I'd have fired you long ago. As much as I enjoy Neowin for its informative articles, articles from you seem to detract from what is otherwise a pretty informative site. I've worked in real corporate IT for a long time, and for really demanding situations and with a lot of exposure to the business side of things as well. The articles you write, and maybe it's just lately, show a total lack of knowledge or concern for factual information and instead tend to take the PR campaign of whom you like and spin it up, or the company you don't and criticise them (poorly).

So my suggestion to Neowin is simple. If you want to keep putting up articles like these, then just call up TMZ and see if they'd like a tech section. It seems more logical.

I have wanted a Chromebook ever since the Pilot Program launched. Sometimes I still get excited when I go to the mailbox. But alas, it's always empty... like my heart.

**** you, Google.

But seriously, the concept of an "always on" notebook than has just what I want on it (i.e. browser, add-ons) with great battery life sounds just peachy. The price is steep, but if it's a high-quality device, it will pay for itself. I am tired of being tethered to a bulky desktop PC.

Educated Idiot said,
I have wanted a Chromebook ever since the Pilot Program launched. Sometimes I still get excited when I go to the mailbox. But alas, it's always empty... like my heart.

**** you, Google.

But seriously, the concept of an "always on" notebook than has just what I want on it (i.e. browser, add-ons) with great battery life sounds just peachy. The price is steep, but if it's a high-quality device, it will pay for itself. I am tired of being tethered to a bulky desktop PC.

What would be wrong with an Android tablet? The Asus Eee Transformer even has a hardware keyboard. Honestly I don't see why they didn't just make an Android variant and let us keep our local apps. IMO ChromeOS just doesn't make sense.

this has failure written all over it. There is a lot problems with chrome OS. Its good very limited subset of people. B

Yeah, and getting in touch with Google for any type of support is the equivalent of getting in touch with the Wizard of Oz.

Say what you will about Microsoft, but their tech support (once you get one with a good accent) is unmatched. And they will remote control your computer to fix any problem for $60.

Google? I shudder to think about it.

Yes, this will be a real sticking point for them if they don't get their act together on the support side. You'd think that with an enterprise market, they'd work this out, but they haven't released details on it.

ARTICLE said,
While it won't fit every business's every varied need, it covers a wide swath of corporate IT. Virtualization vendors now have the capability to deliver graphics intensive engineering tools like AutoCAD over a network link, so the idea of a biomedical engineer designing a limb on a Chromebook isn't as farfetched as you would think.

Let me see if I can get this right? So, an Engineering company that needs to run applications like AutoCAD, MatLab or any other similar high performance application can use Chrome OS and have all their projects and data on-line?

So, if internet access has a problem for a few days, the company will have all their project delayed and maybe loose a couple of millions? I don't see this happening any time soon.

What if they are developing an innovative product and their data is stolen from Google servers? What will happen?

I can see using Cloud computing for auxiliary work in a company, not something vital as the company business (like engineering, design or software development - the last one, for sure I would never leave on Google servers, seeing how they have a tendency of copying software from other companies).

From a pure technical perspective, you can run AutoCAD, Matlab, etc. in a virtual environment (with certain vendors). Whether or not you firm wants to from an organizational standpoint is a different point altogether.

Tzvi Friedman said,
From a pure technical perspective, you can run AutoCAD, Matlab, etc. in a virtual environment (with certain vendors). Whether or not you firm wants to from an organizational standpoint is a different point altogether.

I don't have a problem with Cloud Computing, specially regarding the technical perspective. I see it as an interesting and viable way of outsourcing IT infrastructure.

What I'm bringing to the discussion are the issues related to the business. As, in my opinion, as with any other form of outsourcing, you shouldn't outsource your business, only the activities that are needed to support it. As an example, imagine an Engineering firm. They should outsource supporting services like building maintenance, security, maybe HR and IT too (but these clearly need a first party counterpart from the company to keep things in order with the company's direction).
But outsourcing your business just seems really complicated to me. I find the risks too high for such thing. In the case we're discussing, the outsourcing of tools that generate projects would bring many issues to the table:
- Small outages that delay projects (Amazon's outage of a few days that happened a couple of weeks ago);
- Long outages that impact deadlines, customer satisfaction and tarnishes reputation of a company (Sony's issues that will last until 31st May);
- Sensitive customer data exposure or theft (like Sony's customers CC data stolen);
- Product projects and data theft (imagine if the iPhone 5 project was leaked before even a prototype was available)
- Who has access to your one's company data (in my company, we know who works and who has access to what, that may not be true at your IaaS or SaaS provider and can increase risk by a lot)

It's not about Google and Chrome OS, it is about the whole Cloud Computing business and what to outsource. Some things that are not vital to a company can easily be "clouded", others I don't think are feasible. Can you imagine a software development company storing their in-development-not-yet-patented software in either Google or Microsoft servers? Can you trust them on this? Can the IRS trust Google not using their tax payer data if they ever decide to host it in their cloud?

With the Sony fiasco, other recent hackings, and Amazon servers going down, people are realizing it's not good to throw everything onto some 3rd party server.

With just the right amoung of promotion i'm sure this Chrome OS can be big. Look at the general kind of people. They just do email, webbrowsing, IM and some games. With HTML5 and annoying flash, games can work pretty well, unless your looking to games like Crysis.

I personally love Office Web Apps since it does exactly what I need, doesn't cost anything and the info is saved automaticly and it's available on any pc I want. So I sure believe in cloud computing, even with some risks of privacy issues and Sony security standards. But even if we don't like it, I guess we don't have a choice because almost every company is going into the clouds.

But where Chrome OS will fail is simple. You probably can't download music and movies for free. Now I don't promote illegal downloading and stuff, but it is what people are doing on the computer. If word gets around you can't download stuff on that machine, who wants it?

Only if services like Spotify will get main stream, chrome os wouldn't have to bother with it. But with music companies like Warner Music asking way to much licesing fees, it will probably be impossible to make it happen.

So my conclusion is: Chrome OS will fail, except for those netbooks for people just wanting to browse on, and iPad similar devices.

Peter van Dam said,
Only if services like Spotify will get main stream, chrome os wouldn't have to bother with it. But with music companies like Warner Music asking way to much licesing fees, it will probably be impossible to make it happen.

Games are becoming services. If music becomes a service, what's next? Food will become a service and will also come with a subscription?

KavazovAngel said,

Games are becoming services. If music becomes a service, what's next? Food will become a service and will also come with a subscription?


It already is, with diets like Weight Watchers at least.

Epic0range said,
No it's not a big deal, it's worthless.
How about we wait and see first before declaring it worthless. For example, WP7 is selling so slow that total Windows Mobile/Phone market share is declining (worthless in many people's book), yet no one is calling it worthless yet. Let's give Google a fair shot to f*ck it up too, shall we?

maybe for internet coffee shop or internet kiosk...

but the price so far its not worth it, for what google, samsung and acer its charging one can get a windows 7 machine with more features

eilegz said,
maybe for internet coffee shop or internet kiosk...

but the price so far its not worth it, for what google, samsung and acer its charging one can get a windows 7 machine with more features

Google is talking Enterprise not home users. For Enterprises in is worth millions.

alexalex said,

Google is talking Enterprise not home users. For Enterprises in is worth millions.

Not until there is manageability around it, let's be honest. AD has kept Microsoft in corps. far longer than it may have remained. Because the company can control just about everything, without that, any OS is of little to no value.

alexalex said,

Google is talking Enterprise not home users. For Enterprises in is worth millions.

An OS that will not be able not to run their In-House Application is worth millions?

zombieChan said,

An OS that will not be able not to run their In-House Application is worth millions?


If their In-House Application is web-based, like more and more are becoming, then yes.

MS Lose32 said,

If their In-House Application is web-based, like more and more are becoming, then yes.

Yes but a lot of companies have apps that are not, and it cost too much to remake them for the web...

MS Lose32 said,

If their In-House Application is web-based, like more and more are becoming, then yes.

Also web apps that might not work with the chrome browser

zombieChan said,

Yes but a lot of companies have apps that are not, and it cost too much to remake them for the web...

True, but I'm sure that over time, browser-based OSes will become more and more feasible as a lot of those applications either get rewritten or replaced (which they'll have to sooner or later), and web technologies become more and more powerful (e.g. HTML5, Web Storage, Offline Cache, canvas tag, etc.).

zombieChan said,

Also web apps that might not work with the chrome browser

Like I said, everything eventually gets rewritten or replaced. And when they do, the developers will code to the standards, unless they're incompetent idiots! (which I'm afraid no technology on earth can fix)

MS Lose32 said,
Like I said, everything eventually gets rewritten or replaced. And when they do, the developers will code to the standards, unless they're incompetent idiots! (which I'm afraid no technology on earth can fix)

Yes but if a company had a Silverlight App written, then it'll probably be a while until they recode it to work for ChromeOS..

i would like to see it run and play with it for a bit, who knows, might be good enough for a switch, and with time, windows might be just another platform (though games are a big selling point for windows, mac soft for macs and linux, well, that is for people wanting something different)

No it's not, now an Android laptop, that would be a big deal... if I wanted to boot up an instant on web browser, I'd hit the other startup button on my laptop.

AKLP said,
This is just a post from a google employe to gather sheeps, useless

Yeah! How dare Google try to make some new and innovative! Only Microsoft has the right to make cool stuff!

MS Lose32 said,

Yeah! How dare Google try to make some new and innovative! Only Microsoft has the right to make cool stuff!

whats new and innovative about it? MS has had these solutions and BETTER for years already.
Never heard of Thinclients and Windows XP Embedded? you basically have a Chrome OS with tons of more functionality and features, and best yet.... its been around for over a decade, before Google even existed.

This is a joke, really. ChromeOS isn't really an OS. It's a kernel and mostly a web app. Disconnect the thing and what do you have? A brick. Mac, Linux and Windows all trump this sorry excuse for an OS. How absolutely laughable that anyone considers this seriously.

ScubaDog said,
This is a joke, really. ChromeOS isn't really an OS. It's a kernel and mostly a web app. Disconnect the thing and what do you have? A brick. Mac, Linux and Windows all trump this sorry excuse for an OS. How absolutely laughable that anyone considers this seriously.

Html5 offline features:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html5#New_APIs - Offline storage database.

I prefer applications thank you. "It can do anything a Windows PC can"

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5?
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere?
Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs?
Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work?
Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them?

No thank you.

Benjy91 said,
I prefer applications thank you. "It can do anything a Windows PC can"

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5?
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere?
Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs?
Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work?
Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them?

No thank you.

Well, we just have to wait and see what they're gonna offer as they try and compete with other firms. Now in order to do that, they obviously have asked these questions themselves, and right now they just want the popularity to rise, and to see how well the product does at the start of its life. Then I'm sure in the future we're going to see some improvements and answers to some of the questions you've asked! Personally, I don't like the interface, but thats my opinion, and with improvements (hopefully) in the near future, I may start liking the idea! Let's not have a one-track mind when thinking about Chrome OS.

Benjy91 said,
I prefer applications thank you. "It can do anything a Windows PC can"

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5?
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere?
Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs?
Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work?
Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them?

No thank you.

I don't think Google ever intended Chrome OS to be meant for content creation. We are talking about something for the typical home user and a replacement for the corporate desktop. That being said, from a theoretical perspective:

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5? Yes
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere? Yes
Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs? Yes
Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work? Yes
Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them? Yes

Though I will grant you that none of the above will work in the current incarnation. That is not what Google is looking at. They are looking at this eight years out.

There is actually very little stopping Adobe from offering the full version of Photoshop online, the same can be said of Premiere. Most of the app would have to be cached, but it could be done without much of a performance penalty. The same could be said for Microsoft Office.

As for gaming, I think you are going to see a trend more towards services like Onlive given that most people simply can not keep up with the latest and greatest to play a game that is readily available on their console. So, yes it could do this to. If you are talking about iPhone style games, the tech is there.

Finally, on HD video. The future is streaming from a locker. However, again... one could have local storage.

So in summary, the current Chrome OS is basically a tech preview. The future will be likely blending Android and Chrome OS.

azure.sapphire said,

...Though I will grant you that none of the above will work in the current incarnation. That is not what Google is looking at. They are looking at this eight years out.

There is actually very little stopping Adobe from offering the full version of Photoshop online, the same can be said of Premiere. Most of the app would have to be cached, but it could be done without much of a performance penalty. The same could be said for Microsoft Office.
....

And where do you think Microsoft and Apple will be 8yrs out?

As for running Photoshop, Premiere, etc... The local computing is not capable of handling it, and server side can handle it, but would quickly saturate as more users concurrently use it.

The online server computing demands scale up so fast, it is more like 20 years out before we can see the SAME LEVEL of performance and features we have today with desktop PCs running this software than if everyone using this software moved to ChromeOS as the server performance numbers ALONE would be off the charts in what we can even do today with a marginal number of users.

Microsoft has more ties to mobile, terminal, internet, cloud, web service computing technologies than Google, and if this was the future, why wouldn't Windows 8, that is already runningon devices with less power and requirements that the Motorola Droid uses to provide a lack luster experience just bringing up contacts and dialing phone numbers. Even today, Windows 7 can run on lower computing level devices than Android with better performance. Go Youtube Windows 7 on minimal hardware, then note the CPU class and its performance relative to the ARM/etc CPUs running Android phones and tablets.

Linux and Android's VM is not light, and ChromeOS is not light either. It is a myth that Linux is lighter than Windows 7 and especially WindowsCE.

thenetavenger said,

And where do you think Microsoft and Apple will be 8yrs out?

As for running Photoshop, Premiere, etc... The local computing is not capable of handling it, and server side can handle it, but would quickly saturate as more users concurrently use it.

The online server computing demands scale up so fast, it is more like 20 years out before we can see the SAME LEVEL of performance and features we have today with desktop PCs running this software than if everyone using this software moved to ChromeOS as the server performance numbers ALONE would be off the charts in what we can even do today with a marginal number of users.

Microsoft has more ties to mobile, terminal, internet, cloud, web service computing technologies than Google, and if this was the future, why wouldn't Windows 8, that is already runningon devices with less power and requirements that the Motorola Droid uses to provide a lack luster experience just bringing up contacts and dialing phone numbers. Even today, Windows 7 can run on lower computing level devices than Android with better performance. Go Youtube Windows 7 on minimal hardware, then note the CPU class and its performance relative to the ARM/etc CPUs running Android phones and tablets.

Linux and Android's VM is not light, and ChromeOS is not light either. It is a myth that Linux is lighter than Windows 7 and especially WindowsCE.

I never said that Microsoft and Apple would not be here. Why does this always become a Windows 8 Vs everyone else? I still hold to my eight years though, if not five. It won't be desktop performance, but it will be good enough for most people. I was not thinking of the Chrome OS laptop. I was purely thinking of the OS, and what likely will be the next OS from Google.

Benjy91 said,

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5?
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere?

Image and Video manipulation is not the domain of netbooks. Will you be wanting to do the same on Windows 8 tablets? I'd like to see you do that with a touch screen lol.
Benjy91 said,

Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs?

The fact that it doesn't come with MS Office is a feature in my book. Docs is good enough for netbook use.
Benjy91 said,

Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work?

WebGL - Welcome to the world of html5 Or alternatively, you can use flash (farmville etc).
Benjy91 said,

Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them?

Yes, ChromeOS caches many things, including Music Beta, Docs etc. You can listen to music, and edit your documents offline. Although these days, it's rarely a problem considering there's a wireless access point in most buildings.
Benjy91 said,

No thank you.

It's pretty obvious to me that you don't want a netbook. They aren't designed for such things. Best stick to your desktop PC.

Flawed said,

WebGL - Welcome to the world of html5 Or alternatively, you can use flash (farmville etc).

I think he means games like: Half-Life2, Crysis, CoD, Elder Scrolls, Ects

Benjy91 said,
I prefer applications thank you. "It can do anything a Windows PC can"

Can I play with my images in Adobe Photoshop CS5?
Can I edit my vacation videos in Adobe Premiere?
Can I run Microsoft Office and not some crappy Google Docs?
Can I play a few games when I'm fed up of work?
Can I watch my HD videos on it without having to stream them?

No thank you.

Today as things stand you can run all tasks as listed above with Terminal Services.

zombieChan said,

I think he means games like: Half-Life2, Crysis, CoD, Elder Scrolls, Ects

Are you seriously suggesting that some one would want to play those on a 10 inch screen? Not to mention the fact that there isn't a single netbook on the market today that could run those types of games at anything approaching a decent FPS.

Although Crysis 2 does run nicely on my Ubuntu box, it doesn't stand a chance with integrated graphics yet. In the future perhaps when they become more powerful, but as of today, those games are too demanding for netbook like devices.

This being google they will have the capability to track all activity that happens while running their OS. Not sure which IT departments are salivating over that.

Friedman and all those pro Chrome OS supporters...be the first to sell all your Windows based PCs, get your Chromebooks (whatever) and start paying for obsolete terminals.

I mean...try to do some real work with Facebook, Twitter, RSS feeds, Google apps, whatever...

Ok? Thanks.

O Rly?
First you want those life-time windows user to switch to linux,
then you ripe off all their programs and leave them with only a browser,
thirdly you tell them to put all their sensitive data on YOUR data centers,
afinallylly their computer become scrap metal if they can't connect to YOUR data centers.
Thanks but no thanks google, my company will skip this one.

Field Commander A9 said,
O Rly?
First you want those life-time windows user to switch to linux,
then you ripe off all their programs and leave them with only a browser,
thirdly you tell them to put all their sensitive data on YOUR data centers,
afinallylly their computer become scrap metal if they can't connect to YOUR data centers.
Thanks but no thanks google, my company will skip this one.

Your company will be a looser left behind

"A number of companies have already publicly admitted that their IT departments are running major trials of Chromebooks, including the City of Orlando, Logitech, Jason's Deli, American Airlines, Ruby Tuesday, National Geographic, and others."

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ons-in-sales-to-chromebook/

alexalex said,

Your company will be a looser left behind

Well what's better, a looser company or a tighter one? ^^

alexalex said,

Your company will be a looser left behind

"A number of companies have already publicly admitted that their IT departments are running major trials of Chromebooks, including the City of Orlando, Logitech, Jason's Deli, American Airlines, Ruby Tuesday, National Geographic, and others."

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ons-in-sales-to-chromebook/

There is a big difference from running trials to deploying something in some corporation environment (it may even take a couple of years for that to happen).

alexalex said,

Your company will be a looser left behind

"A number of companies have already publicly admitted that their IT departments are running major trials of Chromebooks, including the City of Orlando, Logitech, Jason's Deli, American Airlines, Ruby Tuesday, National Geographic, and others."

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ons-in-sales-to-chromebook/

Those are the names in the pot? City of Orlando and American Airlines cannot do this because they have to secure customer data. Good luck doing that remotely.

They also absolutely have custom software written to manage the swathes of information that they deal with. The only people that could use this computer are secretaries, or other expendable positions.

So, if you get a Chrome OS-based computer, then you should start looking for another job. I hope to never be stuck glued to someone else's network to get work done. Whenever I travel, I take my laptop and do more than surf the internet. I write software on multiple platforms, which requires all sorts of things, including the platforms themselves. It requires local storage. And I need to be able to do work without an internet connection. 3G or otherwise is not always available.

My iPhone 4 has no signal for a good portion of the trip to my parent's house. Or on the way to my friend's house out of town. And inside of it, the connection is slow as dirt.

Combine this with providers capping data, and who the heck wants this except people tricked into thinking it's a good thing to be glued to Google's cloud?

If I were a blogger, then I could see this as a good thing. A small, light laptop with browser functionality. Awesome. Get a MacBook Air or a netbook and get well-over twice as much functionality, immediately, without a small, persistent leech on your bank account and the ability to actually work offline.

I also find it amusing that everyone is ignoring the immediate vertical monopoly that Google assumes with Chrome OS...

alexalex said,

Your company will be a looser left behind

"A number of companies have already publicly admitted that their IT departments are running major trials of Chromebooks, including the City of Orlando, Logitech, Jason's Deli, American Airlines, Ruby Tuesday, National Geographic, and others."

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ons-in-sales-to-chromebook/

Stop talking rubbish.
The IT Landscape is large enough for multiple platforms to maintain themselves.
Chosing a platform is just a matter of taste and the best choice for that specific environment.

McG said,

Well what's better, a looser company or a tighter one? ^^

He probably doesn't understand. I hate it when people can't figure out what looser means.

alexalex said,

Your company will be a looser left behind

"A number of companies have already publicly admitted that their IT departments are running major trials of Chromebooks, including the City of Orlando, Logitech, Jason's Deli, American Airlines, Ruby Tuesday, National Geographic, and others."

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...ons-in-sales-to-chromebook/

Strange the companies I work with have also looked at these device, but not in the way Google intends.

I'm sure the 'City of Orlando' is far more technically informed that our companies clients and partners like: HP/EDS, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Microsoft, etc...

Oh wait, maybe if the city of Munich told everyone this was the way to go, and they could convert to ChromeOS in 5 years we would have much more faith in ChromeOS.... Oh wait, that work out os well, uh?

Jumping on a 'kewl' idea is silly, especially when it only 'kewl' because you have never seen before and have no concept of how it matches history and how it holds up to current and future computing technology models.

If you really think this is great and kewl, go research it a bit and see if this really is 'new' and worty 'of kewl'. I bet you would be surprised to have seen this fail before for the same reasons it would now.

Flawed said,
I can't wait for ChromeOS to eat into Microsoft's Windows/Office cashcow big time. Windows is obsolete

Yeah, we get it, you're anti-microsoft.

Flawed said,
I can't wait for ChromeOS to eat into Microsoft's Windows/Office cashcow big time. Windows is obsolete
While I don't think Windows is obsolete just yet, I strongly believe that the more competition Microsoft has, the more the end user benefits! Go Chrome OS! Light a fire under Microsoft's slow ass!

Flawed said,
I can't wait for ChromeOS to eat into Microsoft's Windows/Office cashcow big time. Windows is obsolete

Except for that it isn't...

All of my companies web apps are running on window servers, so even if we switch to ChromeOS, we'll still be running Windows

zombieChan said,

Except for that it isn't...

All of my companies web apps are running on window servers, so even if we switch to ChromeOS, we'll still be running Windows

And a lot of companies' servers aren't. Now they have a good chance to be completely Microsoft-free! (and save big bucks in the process too!)

MS Lose32 said,
And a lot of companies' servers aren't. Now they have a good chance to be completely Microsoft-free! (and save big bucks in the process too!)

And they can go ahead and do that, I'm saying Windows won't be obsolete. There's also a lot of web servers running Windows and require running an ASP.NET app(And .NET Webservices).

MS Lose32 said,
While I don't think Windows is obsolete just yet, I strongly believe that the more competition Microsoft has, the more the end user benefits! Go Chrome OS! Light a fire under Microsoft's slow ass!

You criticize Microsoft for being "slow" yet you fail to see how much dedication they put into their products. Windows 7, for example, has received outstanding reviews, and so has Windows Phone, too. They took some time with these products, but they turned out well.

Now let's compare that to the FOSS community, which churns out crappy software in just a couple of weeks. The same thing happens at Google. They churn out Android, Chrome, and ChroneOS, and the quality is a testament to why their work model will never, erm work. The fact is, you can't just spend a child's play's worth of time and expect a killer result.

Apparently, as long as the FOSS community forgets the "Slow and steady wins the race" rule, they're doomed to fail.

and what happens when google fixes a bug in chrome that breaks the behavior on existing websites? (like the canvas composition bug that is still not fixed despite being known for a year).

since you can't use any alternative browser or rollback to previous version of chrome, you're stuck!

IT departments are sure gonna love that when google publishes an update that breaks with their intranet!
and end users are gonna love what appears to be bugs on their usually working favorite websites -which will actually be due to bug fixes on chrome- after silent automatic updates.

When a website doesn't work on chrome for windows/osx, people use IE/firefox/safari. What is the fallback solution on chrome OS?

are we supposed to visit and only use sites/services operated by google (that will be guaranteed to be updated before chrome OS's browser breaking changes) ?

link8506 said,

IT departments are sure gonna love that when google publishes an update that breaks with their intranet!

And IT departments don't have the same problem with IE? Do you think they will just install Firefox? It's exactly the same situation.

Flawed said,

And IT departments don't have the same problem with IE? Do you think they will just install Firefox? It's exactly the same situation.

do you even know what you're talking about?

MS has never pushed silently newer versions of IE!
MS never causes breaking changes in silent updates (automatic updates on Windows update).

that's why so many IT departments are still using IE6: it is still receiving security updates, and these updates don't break compatibility, as opposite to running a newer version of IE/chrome.

On the other hand, google will silently update chrome with newer versions of chrome fixing rendering bugs (and thus causing compatibility issues: web apps that stop working).

Do you think IT departments will like that when thousands of employees will be unable to work because some intranet application has been broken by a silent update on chrome?

link8506 said,

do you even know what you're talking about?

MS has never pushed silently newer versions of IE!
MS never causes breaking changes in silent updates (automatic updates on Windows update).

that's why so many IT departments are still using IE6: it is still receiving security updates, and these updates don't break compatibility, as opposite to running a newer version of IE/chrome.

And that, sir, is why you code to W3C standards, not to any individual browser. And if you choose to use experimental HTML5 features like the canvas tag you mentioned above, it is your responsibility to be on the lookout in case they break. That's why they are called experimental.

MS Lose32 said,
And that, sir, is why you code to W3C standards, not to any individual browser.

no browser has a 100% perfect implementation of W3C standards, even like html4/css2.1!
developers don't code to W3C standards, they code to implementations of w3c standards. And they assume these implementations are 100% perfect, but they're not. There are still bugs that exist in every browser and their fix can cause breaking changes, even on sites that do not use canvas/html5/...


And if you choose to use experimental HTML5 features like the canvas tag you mentioned above, it is your responsibility to be on the lookout in case they break. That's why they are called experimental.

even though most html5 parts are still drafts, a lot of webmasters are using these technologies as if they were ready for prime time. That's OK if users have a fallback solution in case of a breaking browser update (like using another browser, or downgrading the browser version), but if they can't do so, that is going to be a problem on chrome OS!

link8506 said,
and what happens when google fixes a bug in chrome that breaks the behavior on existing websites? (like the canvas composition bug that is still not fixed despite being known for a year).

since you can't use any alternative browser or rollback to previous version of chrome, you're stuck!

IT departments are sure gonna love that when google publishes an update that breaks with their intranet!
and end users are gonna love what appears to be bugs on their usually working favorite websites -which will actually be due to bug fixes on chrome- after silent automatic updates.

When a website doesn't work on chrome for windows/osx, people use IE/firefox/safari. What is the fallback solution on chrome OS?

are we supposed to visit and only use sites/services operated by google (that will be guaranteed to be updated before chrome OS's browser breaking changes) ?

Have you USE chrome? That never happens.

PotatoJ said,
Have you USE chrome? That never happens.

weird, happends to me all the time.
MS doesnt change rendering in a running version of IE. It only does so on completely new versions of IE. Which they do not shuf down your throat but make it an optional upgrade.
Google does change rendering even during the same version, they shuf new updates automatically down your throat and do not offer rollback solutions. MS does offer rollback solutions, you can still install and use IE6, IE7 and IE8... even tho they try to push IE9 through on everyone's system.

yeah... for those many pro bloggers, those who were dependent on Google's super reliable "online" setup, for them for last 30 hours or so, its no lights in the office...

Will giant corps too would take similar steps ??

Choto Cheeta said,
yeah... for those many pro bloggers, those who were dependent on Google's super reliable "online" setup, for them for last 30 hours or so, its no lights in the office...

Will giant corps too would take similar steps ??


And enterprise servers have 100% uptime? ISP's? There's really little you can do offline these days. But ChromeOS does uses the caching features of html5, so you can work on your documents offline, and when your network becomes available again, it will simply resynchronise itself. The same applies to the Music Beta, which will also cache your recently listened to songs/playlists.

There's nothing wrong with scepticism, but religiously holding preconceived notions about new paradigms, especially ones that are fallacious, is misplaced.

leeoniya said,
for it to replace an OS, they will need Chrome Native baked in (maybe it is, dunno). http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20062115-264.html
without it, the standard OS is here to stay.

For content consumers who conduct their lives on Facebook, Twitter, and the Web in general, I think this is perfect. You never have to worry about security (malware, rootkits, botnets, viruses, keyloggers), updates, or compatibility. If it runs on the web, it will run on ChromeOS. I quite like the idea myself.

Wakers said,
For me the most important question is: can they keep it secure?

Very good question.
The answer is: no, they can not.

It's interesting to see how many people will jump on this....

Wakers said,
For me the most important question is: can they keep it secure?

Even if they keep it secure, that is not the one topic I'm concerned about. I'm more concerned about their privacy argreement, or should I call it differently?

Robbeke said,

Even if they keep it secure, that is not the one topic I'm concerned about. I'm more concerned about their privacy argreement, or should I call it differently?

Quite an appropriate question. This is something that Google should address about every single product they have out there. Their lack of security and privacy is mind-boggling to me..

Wakers said,
For me the most important question is: can they keep it secure?

Even Google's answer is No...

For example, they only will back/tout the security of their Chrome Browser with a disclaimer with the following tagline... "When running on Windows 7 64bit."

They won't promise security for their own browser when running on OSX, Linux, or even Android itself.

link8506 said,

as much as any software!
http://www.vupen.com/demos/VUPEN_Pwning_Chrome.php
https://twitter.com/#!/VUPEN/status/68428507172188160

like any OS, chrome OS/browser will still be vulnerable to 0day flaws... as long as they are not reported to google, google can't fix them.


And what is the exploit going to do with the system? It's GNU/Linux based, not Windows. The browser will be sand boxed, and it's running as a normal user, not root. I'd like to see something exploit that lol.

Flawed said,

And what is the exploit going to do with the system? It's GNU/Linux based, not Windows.

wait, are you seriously believing that this chrome flaw is windows-only, and that browsers exploits don't work on linux?

look at osx/safari, even though osx is an unix, it gets pwned at every Pwn2Own constest!

browsers like chrome running on linux can be owned with the same flaws as on windows!


The browser will be sand boxed, and it's running as a normal user, not root.

well, chrome is fully sandboxed on windows like IE 7/8 and 9 (and on windows vista/7, even admin users have low privileges, thanks to UAC)

on linux, chrome is not fully sandboxed, as flash player (included in chrome) is not sandboxed on linux/osx (which makes chrome on linux/osx easier to hack than on windows).

I'd like to see something exploit that lol.

did you even read the twitter link from vupen saying:
"Our upcoming 0day demo will probably target Google...Android phones Nexus S. It will be remotely pwned and rooted via a simple web page."

should I remember you that android is linux-based?
Vupen has a working exploit allowing to run a malware in root mode when visiting a webpage on android (even though android's web browser is sandboxed and not running as root!)

are you still believing than linux is magically immune to browser hacks, malwares running as standard users, and kernel elevations?

Wakers said,
For me the most important question is: can they keep it secure?

There's no way I'll be jumping into Chrome OS while the spate of personal information thefts is at the forefront of my mind. I have too much personal info floating around as it is, without having everything I do on the computer being stored on the web somewhere.

boumboqc said,

This is one of the most ridiculous comments i saw here in a while

seriously, what did you fail to understand in my comment?

that linux/unix based OSes are vulnerable to malwares and drive-by downloads too? (and thus, chrome OS is technically vulnerable too, like the linux-based android is!)

are you too idiot to understand that?

look at the vupen twitt saying that they managed to run malicious code as root in the linux kernel of android, by just visiting a malicious webpage on chrome. That's a drive-by download exemple affecting a browser running on linux, whether you like it or not.

Edited by link8506, May 13 2011, 9:31pm :

link8506 said,
That's a drive-by download exemple affecting a browser running on linux, whether you like it or not.

You can't download things in chrome...your hard drive is a cloud drive.
And if something affects the os, the security chip built into the hardware of the laptop detects a difference and completely whips the current os with the old valid one (then updates). The settings/apps are all in the cloud an can be re downloaded, (but i think it just keeps them).

Plus with a chromebook you get full hardware replacement with the plans, and you can log into any other computer with chrome and instantly be back up and running. its just so dam awesome.

Euphoria said,

Quite an appropriate question. This is something that Google should address about every single product they have out there. Their lack of security and privacy is mind-boggling to me..

WAY to mind boggling for me to consider ANYTHING they have their hands into!

iflyun said,

You can't download things in chrome...your hard drive is a cloud drive.

you mean chrome OS (not chrome).
Actually, there will be some sort of local storage for offline document/mail editing.


And if something affects the os, the security chip built into the hardware of the laptop detects a difference and completely whips the current os with the old valid one (then updates).

once a malware has root access, it could theorically update the system's backup rom so that it is automatically restored along with the OS. Nothing is totally hack proof (look at the consoles out there... chrome OS share the same basic idea of being a black box. That didn't prevent the PS3 from being hacked.)

The settings/apps are all in the cloud an can be re downloaded, (but i think it just keeps them). Plus with a chromebook you get full hardware replacement with the plans, and you can log into any other computer with chrome and instantly be back up and running. its just so dam awesome.

so, any malicious chrome extension will be redownloaded on any computer you log in? great...

once a malware is running on your system, it doesn't need to stay permanently. Once it has stole your google account password, malicious hackers can retrieve all your cloud stored documents. Even if your computer is shut down. They could also change your google account password, change your various accounts password (like paypal), and alter your google account setting so that a malicious chrome extension get installed automatically on any computer you log in (to watch all your forms submissions for example).