Google's Chrome OS revealed

By maash
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Livin in a box

Posted
Posted
It will work fine, although it doesn't do much useful.

They're talking about what they intend to run the finished product on. It isn't a standalone OS designed to be run on any machine, it's intended to be run on special lightweight machines with solid state memory (ie flash, which could be as little as 1GB for all we know), and no other products will be sold with it (assuming anything ever makes it to market at all).

I just want to have a little look since I've downloaded it.

Mentor

Dark_ph0enix

Posted
Posted
Again, while a 160GB SSD may not be cheap, the amount of flash memory required to boot this OS is quite small and thus the costs of that storage will actually be less than a 160GB HDD (nevermind the costs of a 160GB SSD). The reason why we don't need a 160GB SSD is because your data is stored on Google's online cloud. People don't really seem to get that this is a cloud computing project and they want it to work just like every other desktop OS. It isn't and it won't.

Personally, I'm not doubting that it'll have a small footprint - I just don't understand the need to move down the SSD route - Wouldn't it be easier, and cheaper, to have the OS as a True SplashTop OS, that doesn't load from the SSD? That way they could just throw in a cheap and cheerful standard HDD - particularly, as given the way the OS is supposed to be used - with apps, and more importantly, storage, all cloud-based, then you don't need a blazingly fast HDD.

Hell they could throw in a generic 80GB HDD, and, assuming everything IS kept online "in the cloud", then that'd be more than enough for offline storage needs.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
So Chrome OS is just a browser, hmmm I really dislike the idea and I don't think it will go anywhere other than netbooks and notebooks perhaps

It isn't meant to go further than netbooks. Again, people seem disappointed to find out that this won't destroy Windows 7 and OS/X on their desktop computers. It was never about that.

Personally, I'm not doubting that it'll have a small footprint - I just don't understand the need to move down the SSD route - Wouldn't it be easier, and cheaper, to have the OS as a True SplashTop OS, that doesn't load from the SSD? That way they could just throw in a cheap and cheerful standard HDD - particularly, as given the way the OS is supposed to be used - with apps, and more importantly, storage, all cloud-based, then you don't need a blazingly fast HDD.

Hell they could throw in a generic 80GB HDD, and, assuming everything IS kept online "in the cloud", then that'd be more than enough for offline storage needs.

A very small flash/SSD drive will be cheaper than a generic 80GB hard drive while offering "instant on" capabilities and more drop tolerance. There is no need for a HDD.

Grand Master

sundayx Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I think that Chrome OS would be unsuccessful on 2 fronts, images and music. I mean sure cloud maybe the future, but having a large storage of personal things offline, images and music, is always the preferred option. Google has Picasa on one end, but certainly there are needs for some sort of offline computing? Internet coverage is not that high globally, and assuming some infrastructure downtime, the world would come to a standstill. The idea is good, but execution would be difficult.

Experienced

pdmcmahon

Posted
Posted

This much is true, but at the same time they have a tremendous opportunity to fill a niche market that doesn't need all of the overhead of a full blown OS, or folks that don't want Windows, Linux, OS X and love to boot up in 4 seconds.

Mentor

0nyX

Posted
Posted
Under 60 FPS can NOT be gamed on. That's not even smooth. When you encoutner a smoke grenade, artillery or other sudden effect beleive me, you will suffer.

Wrong.The human eye can not tell the difference if you are above 23 or 25 fps (dont remember the exact number).So i f you are playing a game and get 40fps or 50fps its the exact same result on the eye.More fps simply means that in a more intense graphical scene the drop will not be significant and the game will remain playable.If you go below 23 (or25) fps then you can notice the difference.

Above that no difference at all.

Loaded it up on vmWare Fusion last night. It is pretty clean and simple, surprisingly stable for an Alpha. Plus, it boots in 4 seconds, literally!

It boots in 4 seconds coz the only thing loading is a web browser.Click your browser icon under any os and tell me how long it takes for the browser to start.Personally my firefox under Win7 loads in approximately 1 second so 4 seconds for a web browse to load is kinda lame.

Rising Star

DOGglee

Posted
Posted
It boots in 4 seconds coz the only thing loading is a web browser.Click your browser icon under any os and tell me how long it takes for the browser to start.Personally my firefox under Win7 loads in approximately 1 second so 4 seconds for a web browse to load is kinda lame.

i believe that he's talking about boot time

so you have to account for boot time of Win7 + loading time of firefox which will be > 4 seconds

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
Wrong.The human eye can not tell the difference if you are above 23 or 25 fps (dont remember the exact number).So i f you are playing a game and get 40fps or 50fps its the exact same result on the eye.More fps simply means that in a more intense graphical scene the drop will not be significant and the game will remain playable.If you go below 23 (or25) fps then you can notice the difference.

Above that no difference at all.

It boots in 4 seconds coz the only thing loading is a web browser.Click your browser icon under any os and tell me how long it takes for the browser to start.Personally my firefox under Win7 loads in approximately 1 second so 4 seconds for a web browse to load is kinda lame.

You really won't give it up will you? It's not just a web browser, there's a kernel and drivers etc etc It loads faster because it only loads what's required for Chrome.

Community Regular

PurePhoenix

Posted
Posted
Wrong.The human eye can not tell the difference if you are above 23 or 25 fps (dont remember the exact number).

Another complete fabrication. I personally cannot stand a monitor on 60 htz, it has to be 80+ refresh rate or i DO notice.

Many people actually get eye strain and headaches from sitting at a PC too long if the refresh rate is too low.

Personally my high-range is around 200 fps/htz maybe more, i honestly haven't found a monitor that goes over 200htz to test.

Try a google search before you spout incorrect crap again.

Grand Master

XerXis

Posted
Posted
4. Just how dumb IS it to use open source encryption? Knowing HOW something is encrypted is half the job of decrypting it, and with people these days leveraging games consoles and graphics cards as high powered encryption breaking hardware, it's likely just going to be

please, if you know nothing about a subject don't say anything about it. That's some of the biggest bull**** i've ever heard.

Mentor

0nyX

Posted
Posted
Another complete fabrication. I personally cannot stand a monitor on 60 htz, it has to be 80+ refresh rate or i DO notice.

Many people actually get eye strain and headaches from sitting at a PC too long if the refresh rate is too low.

Personally my high-range is around 200 fps/htz maybe more, i honestly haven't found a monitor that goes over 200htz to test.

Try a google search before you spout incorrect crap again.

Before vometting posts learn the difference between FPS and refresh rate.

You are confused.I understand that but still...

Collaborator

DSLJay

Posted
Posted

I downloaded and installed this in VirtualBox VM. I can now give my honest opinion.

It is cloud based. To even use the OS, you must have an internet connection to logon to it. So, if you are usng a netbook and booting it up to the logon screen, I sure hope you have internet access other wise you will get an error and can not even logon to work off-line. Second, while it does have access to some applicaitons, your speed will be based on your internet connection. I sure hope you don't have a bandwith cap. I tried this using my cell phone's internet connection through my laptop, and it was not very fast. I prefer using my normal desktop at this point in time then this web based OS.

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Yes, you really need a decent 3G internet connection to make this sort of thing worthwhile. That service isn't exactly cheap here in Canada and the combined monthly usage costs will be greater than the original unit cost after only a few months.

Mentor

zagor

Posted
Posted
Yes, you really need a decent 3G internet connection to make this sort of thing worthwhile. That service isn't exactly cheap here in Canada and the combined monthly usage costs will be greater than the original unit cost after only a few months.

Unless google can add some value to cloud computing, ChromeOS is just big baloney. Maybe, 5-10 years from now, it may make sense. But even then, I believe people will prefer something hybrid instead.

Google have not addressed any privacy concerns yet. And their cloud vision seems quite restrictive. While some will claim that ChromeOS is open source, you are still locked to google services and apps.

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
Unless google can add some value to cloud computing, ChromeOS is just big baloney. Maybe, 5-10 years from now, it may make sense. But even then, I believe people will prefer something hybrid instead.

Google have not addressed any privacy concerns yet. And their cloud vision seems quite restrictive. While some will claim that ChromeOS is open source, you are still locked to google services and apps.

Actually you are for some things (like having a Google account to login) but once you're in you can use any web app (in the video they use the MS Office web app to open an excel file)

Mentor

javagreen

Posted
Posted
Another complete fabrication. I personally cannot stand a monitor on 60 htz, it has to be 80+ refresh rate or i DO notice.

I can't notice any difference between my 22" LCD with 60hz and my pal's 19" LCD with 75hz and I have perfectly fine eyesight, no glasses or lenses.

Grand Master

ichi

Posted
Posted
I can't notice any difference between my 22" LCD with 60hz and my pal's 19" LCD with 75hz and I have perfectly fine eyesight, no glasses or lenses.

It would make a difference if they were CRT monitors, on LCD you can have lower refresh rates than those of a CRT and not notice it at all.

Community Regular

PurePhoenix

Posted
Posted
It would make a difference if they were CRT monitors, on LCD you can have lower refresh rates than those of a CRT and not notice it at all.

And i use CRT's. LCD's even at a 2ms responce time does not equal 500fps capability. It's still 60 htz and i still notice.

I can't notice any difference between my 22" LCD with 60hz and my pal's 19" LCD with 75hz and I have perfectly fine eyesight, no glasses or lenses.

That's totally irrelevant. I actually need quite powerful glasses i'm very short-sighted. However my attention to detail is very high so i see the small flicker caused by one frame leaving the screen and the next appearing on CRT's.

On LCD's i see the blurr that comes from the crystals changing.

Before vometting posts learn the difference between FPS and refresh rate.

You are confused.I understand that but still...

On the contrary, you seem to be the one confused. I said i can visibly tell difference up to around 200fps/htz. By that i meant the refresh rate is 200htz and the program onscreen is performing at 200fps or more. In other words, i'm not just noticing tearing, because there is none.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.