Yesterday, Google announced that they plan to release a Chrome based OS.Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.
In a blog posting today, Sundar Pichai, VP Product Management at Google, confirmed that Chrome OS "will be available to use at no cost".
Google also revealed the list of companies it is working with:
- Acer
- Adobe
- ASUS
- Freescale
- Hewlett-Packard
- Lenovo
- Qualcomm
- Texas Instruments
- Toshiba
Company officials confirmed that Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips. Google is currently working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year bundled with the new Chrome OS.
I still doubt if I am ever going to use their OS.
When simplicity comes at cost of features, that's a FAIL.
Couldn't agree more... However the buttons and text are a bit too big.
Except that they're rolling fast getting features in. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but implementing features takes time. The browser is plenty decent in itself right now anyway, so it'd make no sense for them to wait until every last feature was implemented.
And even if they did manage to do that, I'm sure some people here would still find a reason to bitch. They always do.
Sure, and hard core gamers don't really play the Wii. However it's still selling extremely well.
You can be pretty sure it will have OpenOffice. Anything based on linux is suitable for power users or beginners. All you need is a bash shell and you can do almost anything xD
Last edited by HalcyonX12 on 10 Jul 2009 - 17:31
Hardcore gamers my ass. Games are about the gameplay involved, not the graphics or the sound or the hidef crap.
Isn't it a bit early to be rationally making that kind of decision?
Not considering how excellent android is. If it's anything like that I'm putting on mine too.
All software is in a constant state of development; these arbitrary labels give an indiction of stability, nothing more, nothing less. And even the most mature code has bugs. I believe this will be a roaring success
Don't need '7' when you have the power of GNU/Linux
Integrated search toolbars, habits tracking for analytics and better serps, additional features for extra cost, premium support, yadda, yadda, yadda
I use gmail through Thunderbird. I don't ever see any ads, so how exactly is it not free?
Perhaps you are too by evil corporates like MS who tell you free doesn't exist. Yes software is and can be free, id est, free to own and free to modify. Try Kubuntu/Ubuntu if you want to see it in action
People are often brainwashed by the likes of MS into thinking "free" can't exist. This proselytisation is designed to reinforce F.U.D. We can truly have our cake and eat it; and boy does it taste good
And what? This won't help them compete with MS and Apple. Ubuntu is an usable Linux distro and it's free as well, but is it challenging Windows? No. What real users need is good support for professional apps like Photoshop, a powerful office suite (like MS Office 2007), and gaming capabilities.
And seriously, I don't think we need another Linux based distro. We already have Ubuntu for desktop use, for servers we have Debian, and for netbooks Intel Moblin. We simply don't need another fork named Chrome OS (which I guess it will be similar to gOS, but with additional features to make it a true web OS (synchronization capabilities, fast booting...))
and competition is good for the consumers buddy
I hardly think that those are appropriate apps for a low-end cloudbook and such. Do you really think that Crysis and AutoCAD are going to be expected on a $200 unit?
That said, I don't see why not, with cloud computing, you could not run things like Photoshop and MS Office on a remote server, with the cloudbook as your interface. As an example, you would have the advantage of running Photoshop filters/etc. at high speeds on the server without needing to install on your tiny Google unit.
and competition is good for the consumers buddy
Not in OS market, it would create a big mess.
(1) There are many good alternatives to Photoshop. Gimp for example. But if you truly can't live without it, then Photoshop can be run directly in wine.
(2) OpenOffice, KOffice... The list goes on. All very good office suites and they all support the popular OpenDocument format natively. These come with most distros by default and of course, are all free!
(3) There are lots of games that run natively in GNU/Linux. Quake/doom/wolfenstein. And many many others. In addition, the most popular games can run under wine, for example WOW, half-life etc. And if that wasn't enough, there are tons of console emulators in the package respositories; these include snes, gamecube, playstation 2 etc... And of course MAME with all its arcade titles.
However that being said. Most netbooks are not designed to run top end games, but are better suited to the types of games that run natively in Linux, including the MAME titles.
Perhaps you don't realize that you can certainly have closed source apps running in Linux, and no requirement to make it open source.
Surprising to some, but it is really a basic truth.
Surprising to some, but it is really a basic truth.
However Adobe aren't going to make them available for free in a cloud environment
Surprising to some, but it is really a basic truth.
However Adobe aren't going to make them available for free in a cloud environment
Who ever said they would????
If they wanted to, I am sure they could come up with some subscription process for that sort of stuff.
But my reply was to someone who thought that because something ran on Linux, it had to also be open source.
The OS Will have to be open source to a point as it's using the Linux kernel which is Open Source. That doesn't necessarily mean that all the apps on the OS will be but Most will be I'm sure.
From the linked blog:
Yes – Google Chrome OS is an open source project and will be available to use at no cost.
OpenSource doesn't mean "at no cost" and "at no cost" doesn't imply OpenSource either, but this OS would be, according to that, both.
Gmail is a web service, spread across a cluster of servers, not a single desktop program.
Hmm... bit of a bold statement. Why will it fail? Is it because it will be "Linux based", or because Google are somehow stupid?
Because it is Linux-based, which severely handicaps it in terms of support and ease of use.
Why can't Google use its resources to create its own OS? It's hired away a lot of Microsoft's techs. They could get the job done right the first time.
Why can't Google use its resources to create its own OS? It's hired away a lot of Microsoft's techs. They could get the job done right the first time.
So, rather than use an established OS, you're suggesting they make an entirely new one.
And that that, somehow, will give it more support? Ridiculous.
Why can't Google use its resources to create its own OS? It's hired away a lot of Microsoft's techs. They could get the job done right the first time.
I don't even like Linux but I can clearly see you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Do you even understand the terms kernel, window manager, desktop environment, etc.?
We're talking about Google here. I'm sure they're going to work hard to provide an OS that would be easy to use, as the rest of their products are. Ubuntu has helped in making Linux easier for newbies (even though I think it's a piece of sh-- compared to Fedora et al). Put a big corporation like Google in charge, and I'm sure they can come up with something.
That's a great argument. You must have been your school's champion debater with those skills. lol.
If Google can get Direct X and Windows application emulation working solidly, then they could indeed put in the resources to make their OS so good that no end user ever needs to see the 1970's era command line shareware OS underpinnings.
I'd be all in favor of that!
Also, don't underestimate the value of HARDWARE VIRTUALIZATION to the Google OS. With current processors, I can promise you all that there are some new cross OS tricks coming that you've only seen the barest hints of so far...
I think you have things the wrong way around my friend. MS copies all their UI and feature designs from others; including GNU/Linux!
I tried Windows, and found it really "blew chunks" (as you put it so eloquently) so hard because it could not even manage the packages that I installed on it.
What a non-updating mess of a computing environment. You can keep it.
i'm sure it's going to be linux...
Definitely a lot of people who are not technically inclined.
People love Windows for a reason. Try to remember that.
You underestimate the public. Look at mobile phones, they all have different software and UI's yet they all sell like hotcakes. I think we are becoming less dependant on MS and it's petrified of the mere notion of experimentation amongst its user base.
There is very little choice because of the MS tax forced upon OEM's and consumers. If you live in a dictatorship, you don't love the ruler, yet you are still forced into compliance. It's familiarity, not love. Be sure not to get the two confused. This was exemplified by the overwhelming rejection of vista by the public and the subsequent climb down and offering of a XP downgrade option. Why did you think this happened? Because everyone loves the OS? Familiarity of XP simple as that. And do you think '7' will fair any better? It's still a departure from the familiarity of XP remember, and in fact from vista also!
People LOVE Windows? haha now that's funny
I think you spend too much time here in neowin.
this thing will flop
this thing will flop
HP sells more computers than dell; success! Non solum sed etiam, dell sells Ubuntu on its whole range of computers. Linux is gaining traction at an amazing rate. It's an exciting time
Agreed. You don't need to capture 30% market share in the first year of release in order to be significant. A capture of just a couple of percentage points is great, as far as I am concerned.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.