Neowin.net

It can be my wing-man any day!

we really do need more top gun quotes around here

GoOSe ?!

MAVERIIIIICCCKKKKK!!!

Your mouth is writing checks your body can't cash.

I really don't see any competition from this on the desktop.

Google vision of Cloud Computing gets another boost with this indeed, but not a direct competition to operating systems like Windows/*nix/mac. It's a web browser, once it's offline, it's useless.

I suppose this is based on the linux kernel (like Android is).

Android is already capable of running on netbook. Oh well, just because google have a kabillion dollars it's able to finance all their development.

html5 specifies much more powerfull offline features so no problem there.

Does anyone know if netbooks are honestly useful? I've never tried one, only read about their capabilities and I get the feeling that its a gimick.

While I have not used one, and by FAR like a desktop over a notebook (I have 2 monitors at work, 3 at home) My wife's laptop is 2lb (NICE) and there are some times that using her laptop is the perfect tool. Just like the iPhone has some great apps (I don't have one) and there are certain times that each of these items is the right tool. So while I tend to code apps for Windows, there is room for each of these tools in their own way/time.

I am at this moment using and have used "the original netbook" (ASUS Eee 701) since december 2007, and I can confidently say that they are very useful. They won't do intensive taks like 3D rendering or HD video but they'll do everything else. Mine cost 400 USD at the time, but you can get it at half the price today.
So if you need a robust small computer for all your everyday tasks then get a netbook, you won't regret it.
Btw, I have windows XP on mine because I don't wanna spend time getting used to a Linux build, but you can choose freely without any problems.

i have an asus eee 1000he net book 1Gig ram atom n280 chip and it runs vista ultimate just fine.... now that i got my ipod touch . i rarely use my netbook. i could sell it.. but that would make the gods of Murphy law mad and they would seek revenge on me of my other computers



all in all its powerful enough to run firefox vista itunes i pod syncing and the 8 hour battery life is just fantastic

I think the question should rather be whether/how it runs typical applications beyond those bundled at all. It seems to be heavily geared towards web applications.

These are my thoughts exactly is how will this OS integrate with third party software and such that is offline.

It seems to be oriented towards Google applications, but that doesn't mean it's locked to those. Let's just wait a bit and see.
Either way it's always good news making people see that there are alternative to Microsoft's products.

as I mentioned above:

ChromeOS == Cloud Computing (you don't install any software, you have no control over the inner workings of the service.. and thus, you have no control over your own data/privacy)

Android == Full featured OS (You choose applications you can install, your data stays in your HDD...etc)

If it is targeted at Netbooks, I don't see how it could be a cloud OS

Terminal services have been around for a long time to deal with that issue..no?

You are correct, no x64. There are no x64 netbooks and this is an OS designed for netbooks and other low powered machines.

There are. VIA even designed the Nano CPU from scratch for netbooks.

Ok, I will rephrase that; "There are most likely no x64 netbooks that Google will find worthy of supporting."

It's the other way around Google will try hard to close a deal with every OEM out there (be it "worthy" or not) in order to bring as many as possible ChromeOS* netbooks to the market.

*Edited.

Last edited by meriam on 08 Jul 2009 - 08:10

I have to say I am honestly curious as to how this works for Google. And I honestly did not know there were x64 netbooks! (Typically Intel Atoms dominate the press) I will now shut my uninformed mouth and just watch this exciting scene play out.

lol.. I even edited my comment to better clear my point and to make it up to you

It's all good, I understood what you meant. I completely came across as a dick in my first couple post sorry about that, no hard feelings. I actually agree with what you are saying. I think Google would try to make their product as compatible as possible with all current architectures.

There will be no X64 edition maybe, but the X86 edition will still work on X64 CPU's

Well, to be pedantic, the x86 family actually started off as 16-bit. Then 32. Then 64 - which we call the x64 because typing x86-64 repeatedly is unnecessarily long

And let's not forget there are also a few x64 Atoms out there too.

Chrome uses WebKit: Instant win.

Yeah, you know us techies: Always caring about "crap" like security and speed...

Yes, it sounds similar, although it hasn't been announced to be going to move beyond their R&D department yet. Some projects never do, so we'll see.

I suspect that if Google is going ahead with ChromeOS, then MS will move Gazelle forward. I think both solutions are ideal for low-powered ARM netbooks, rather than porting Android and Windows Mobile.

I think it's different. Gazelle is an operating system (sort of) that is exclusively focused on managing the security and processes of the browser. In other words, Gazelle is an operating system that tried to be a browser. Chrome OS is, I believe, a browser that is trying to be an operating system (it will probably target online applications and services, whereas Gazelle is strictly local)

+1

-1

What a obsession with bloat. BTW, why didnt you include MS-DOS (OS you obviously use since you do not like bloat) in that if you do not like bloat?

Dunno about Bloatmeter, but your post comes towards the top of the scale on the 'Pointless-O-Meter'

+2

Haha, so true. Classic dude xD.

Ummm... guys. Have you actually used Google OS, so how can you rate it so good? Also have any of you ever used windows 7? I'm not a big windows fan but it is not bloated. Also does the world really need another Linux distro? The only OS I really see this affecting is Ubuntu. Plus is Google gonna track everything you do on the OS as they do on other products? I would suggest that you see it before gushing over it.

Cracks me up how worried people are about bloat...which Windows 7 has less bloat than vista so I dont know why it was listed last...but anyway. With HD space being CHEAP these days, who cares really...so the install is bigger...if it doesnt effect performance, than W(ho)TF cares....

Because the learning, resource usage, and incompatibilities haven't really benefited us in the long run compared to if they just tweaked one of those versions of that OS to perfection and concentrated on that.

That's why MS should have been broken up to concentrate on OS and Applications separately. A new OS wouldn't mean all of this new stuff they have to tame and fix as well.

Because the learning, resource usage, and incompatibilities haven't really benefited us in the long run compared to if they just tweaked one of those versions of that OS to perfection and concentrated on that.

That's why MS should have been broken up to concentrate on OS and Applications separately. A new OS wouldn't mean all of this new stuff they have to tame and fix as well.

Because the learning, resource usage, and incompatibilities haven't really benefited us in the long run compared to if they just tweaked one of those versions of that OS to perfection and concentrated on that.

That's why MS should have been broken up to concentrate on OS and Applications separately. A new OS wouldn't mean all of this new stuff they have to tame and fix as well.

This bloatmeter scores pretty high on the failscale.

I don't know, I'd personally call it the feature-o-meter.

stupid statement...

Interesting how you're able to know the bloat of something that hasn't been released.

Also, don't you make iced tea or something?

Maybe because it is using the Linux kernel, but building its own windowing/UI on top of it?

You know, kind of completely new?

By your logic, you should yawn and say that Windows 7 is just another Microsoft distro, just like Vista and Me.

Yeah I'd say that but even by that logic, Microsoft is Microsoft, they really know how to make OSes. Google doesn't. We'll see.

Well, they know how to market them, anyhow. They have had a few famous (infamous?) stumbles along the way.

Yup. In fact, Windows 7 is based on the same kernel as Windows 95. You can even boot into true DOS mode.

Oh wait...

A new UI on an old kernel is not "completely" new.

From what's been announced so far, I feel they've made a joke of the word "OS". Waste of all resources too they're put into it.

Strange point you are seeming to try to make in the first part of your post. No one made any such similar claim, and you jump in as Captain Sarcasm. :no:

If you were referring to my post, I merely made the point that Vista, etc could similarly be called "distros" of the NT kernel, and Me and family would be distros of the Windows9x kernel. Not sure why you went so far off into left field...

You also seemed to have trouble comprehending my statement that the windowing and UI were completely new, just running on a Linux kernel (obviously not new, but likely selected for its broad hardware support and freedom to modify and distribute).

Feel free to try jumping in again if you feel you have something to discuss.

It's GNU/Linux, you can build it however you like. No MS restrictions on FOSS

They can't release netbooks for free

Because you can sell Open Source stuff. Look at Red Hat. They sell their version with support and are making profits while other computing companies are declining because of the market.

And people can get Red Hat for free, if they want to download the source and compile (or use a version that someone else downloaded and compiled - and removed trademarks, such as CentOS or White Bo.

The OS will be free, but you still have to pay for the hardware you run it on...

It's hard to make money giving things away for free.

Apple's OS X Server is just a collection of open source technologies but there's a hefty price tag on that. They make a lot of money off "free" open-source software.

I agree with you there. It can be very difficult, as you need to put in something value-added, such as support. Red Hat, for example, has done very well, and even continues to do well during these harsh economic times where other computer-related businesses are in decline.


P.S. This post you made was a good one. Perhaps I was a little dismissive of you in that earlier post. But it really was kindof... nonsensical.

How is introducing a web browser and OS to compete with IE and Windows "anti-competetive"?

+1

I don't see the EU going after Google for this one since Google don't have a monopoly on operating systems nor web browsers.

But it feels like a rickety road they're treading by doing this and at the same time being involved in the EU anti-trust case against Microsoft.

Google doesn't abuse its monopoly, unlike MS.

That's right - Microsoft has no monopoly. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

It's only evil if it's Microsoft because Microsoft has the deepest pockets. If Google's pockets were deep enough to dig into, the EU would be looking for any possible lead to extract that money.

You best be joking.

Linux has been around since about 1997 for mainstream use. It has had pretty good hardware support since 2003. I really don't see a lot of users. It does dominate the lowend to moderate midrange and very highend server arenas. It has yet to deliver on the desktop.

Most end-users do not want a community driven operating system like Fedora and the various flavors of Ubuntu. What they want is an operating system that has a large install base (diversity gives options), 1-800 support from the manufacturer of their product and is well designed and runs with existing hardware and software.

I am not sure if I see this. Gnome and KDE are a bit rough around the edges. Support is a bit expensive (if at all). Hardware support is very limited. It is much pretty that running a Hackintosh, but years behind Windows. It is slowly improving, however. Finally legacy software support can be obtained with virtual machines, but this is much too complicated for the end-user. Worse, Wine is simply not a valid option for the consumer. Finally, the applications, native to the userland seem to be limited in number and functionality.

An example would be my mother.
1). She uses her computer for digital photography
2). Scanning negatives with her 35mm camera
3). genealogy
4). Winjournal
5). iphone.

Why Linux is not her best choice:
She had tried the GIMP, she hates it. She likes Paint Shop Pro. She actually likes it in some ways pretty that Photoshop, though not for everything. The scanner she has, which is paid plenty for does not have a Linux driver. Her choice in genealogy is Family Tree Maker. She does not like GRAMPS. She has recently begun to experiment more with online tools, but still likes localized applications. The same can be said of Winjournal (no real native solution, not as comfortable with a web solution). Finally, the iphone is really not well supported under any Linux distribution (she needs contacts, apps and bookmarks synced).

My solution was to move her into originally a Vista VM under Ubuntu. She really doesn't like XP anymore. She claims the look is too dated. I, however, found that she spent 80% of her time using the VM and only about 20% in the native OS browsing the web and toying with applications. I ended up moving her back to Windows.

Google, however, may overcome many of these problems by licensing the OS directly to OEMs (they provide the support), mixing in elements of cloud computing for a more diversified application experience and going a closed and, or new route for a Windows manager.

Sigh. Considering most of the internet is running the GNU/Linux in some form or another, including your ISP, the routers that convey your data, and probably this site, I highly doubt that.

Now I would be interested to hear you substantiate those claims. Or course, it's more likely you are just trolling, so I wont bother checking for a response.

Umm, ok, which linux distro, exactly, is making any headway in the consumer market? Oh yeah, none, because all of them combined make up about 1% of the market and that's not going to change with Google OS. If you actually think people are going to flock to this, you need a reality check.

To the person above who called me a troll as his sole argument: I posted further up in here or on the other Chrome OS story that Linux as a whole, over all distros including Ubuntu, has less than 1% market share in the consumer OS market. If Google is "Yet Another Linux Distribution", it doesn't stand a chance in Hell of succeeding.

Also, a "cloud computing" solution will not work either. Too many questions about user data.

If Google actually took the time to build an actual discrete OS from scratch--which it has the resources to do--then it stands a chance.

There is only one evil (corporate) empire and it's called Microsoft!

No, IBM was (and in some ways still is an evil empire). They are mostly a player behind the scenes now. I think the same could be said of Apple and Microsoft. Google would be the forth (from the clouds).

IBM = legacy
Microsoft = new kid on the block (reaction to IBM monopoly)
Apple = other new kid on the block (reaction to IBM monopoly, late in coming)
Google = reaction to all three

Cry me a river. Google's right up there.

It's actually a good idea, because they will both promote each other.

Ye, they tend to conveniently leave those details out of it. Now I would be interested in the percentage of netbooks running vista; perhaps < 1% ?

The true test is if users will accept 7. And if vista is anything to go by, the returns will be high...

That's irrelevant. If they're running Windows, Microsoft has made money off of them and they aren't running anything else.

They will accept Win7. Vista is too resource intensive compared to 7, but they share the same design. XP is pretty much dead. Linux does have a chance, but given the inability of any true alternative to emerge during the so-called Vista failure, I really don't hold out a lot of hope.

"Microsoft officials claim that 96% of netbooks run Windows" Yeh right, let's be accurate here 96% of netbooks run Windows... XP"

I don't know how to break it to you boho but Windows XP is Windows. There is nothing inaccurate about that statement so try not to overreact.

never heard of this but looks very interesting!!!!

hey i just signed up its nice

-1

Looks like you need to educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

You know you might be on to something. Not only should a user have a choice of his or her browser, but the OS as well. Upon first boot of the computer a user should be able to select what OS. The other images can than be deleted. This would pretty much require a hypervisor. It could be done, though it will never happen because of the interest in individuals putting out their product.

I think you might want to actually read the article again.

Maybe you should make a point first...I read the article. Just because Google was successful in the search and advertising markets, doesnt mean they will be in the OS market. And just because OEMs will be supporting it, doesnt stop anyone from using anything else.

Chrome is not Android, but it still is Linux. It will be targeted at Netbooks in the beginning, which is a slightly different market dynamic. Further, it will run on ARM. Windows 7 doesn't support this architecture (yet). They do have CE but it is not as application mature. Even if they could get a port, it would be difficult to get legacy software to run on the ARM platform, though modern elements of .net could be ported.

You are correct that just because OEMs license the technology, does not mean that end users will like or use it. However, most individuals do not upgrade their OS.

I happen to find it interesting even if it is little more than a shot in the dark to most people. A hybrid cloud computing strategy that embraces the Linux kernel with a mixed userland could actually work (for everyday users).

And afterwards SRWare will release Iron OS

It's really no secret what Google's stance on privacy is. It's amazing how many people volunteer to be their subjects.

Kinda. It's basically an OS whose only function is to get you online. All your apps will be on the web.

They will never bring MS down. MS OS is something other can just dream about. Behind Windows 7 is 25 years of sweat.

It will be available for x86 and ARM. This does not mean that it will not be available for x86-64. It is the same damn architecture (basically). It has a number of tweaks, and like classic x86 has evolved over time. The reason for x86-32 might be that its first target is netbooks, which generally have low system requirements. It is likely that even in mid 2010 4gigs will be enough for most entry netbooks.

If you read the rest of the article you would realize that is stage 1 in their strategy. The second would be to move it onto the traditional desktop.

BTW... Adobe is looking for many ways to make Photoshop and other programs architecture independent. You saw the very beginning of this with Photoshop Express. I am sure that they have more mature workings planned.

Why?

not the best post, there.

Ummm...I use Hotmail and Bing, but do you really think Wave 3 Hotmail and Bing would be as good as they are without Google and GMail pushing them along?

Yeah, not to mention that it's based on an old outdated version of Ubuntu. Nice job Google.

I think ChromeOS vs. MS Gazelle would be a more accurate comparison than whatever Windows 8 will be.