Google releases official details on Chrome OS

Jacqueline DiOrio 19 Nov, 2009 at 4:52pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 5:00pm ardichoke Hmm... interesting concept, but without any way to run local binaries I'd never be able to use it. I gotta have a functional terminal to get work done. Maybe cool as a secondary OS though.
2. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 5:09pm Cliff_Forster Ubuntu is fucked.
3. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 5:29pm ardichoke :tim:
   
   Not really Cliff. There's a lot of people that actually need to run binaries and not just web apps. Myself included.
4. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 6:10pm lunchb0x

   ardichoke said:

   :tim:
   
   Not really Cliff. There's a lot of people that actually need to run binaries and not just web apps. Myself included.

   Agreed I see Chrome OS getting adoption on netbooks and in schools, but that'd be about it
5. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 6:13pm Cliff_Forster

   ardichoke said:

   :tim:
   
   Not really Cliff. There's a lot of people that actually need to run binaries and not just web apps. Myself included.

   And they will have Windows and OSX as they always have.
6. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 6:19pm ardichoke

   Cliff_Forster said:

   And they will have Windows and OSX as they always have.

   Are you channeling tim today or what? The people that already use Linux are highly unlikely to use Chrome as they generally use Linux for very specific reasons. In my case, I use Linux because I like to tweak the hell out of my computer and because I need things like a usable terminal with ssh for work. Yes, I realize OSX has this, but I'm not interested in paying the Apple tax for "Baby's First BSD".
   
   This is going to take a few users away from Windows more than anything else and will probably end up being a secondary OS for most people. Basically have it there because it doesn't take up much space, boot into it if you just need to check your email but if you're going to do any real work boot into your main OS, be it Windows, OSX or *nix.
7. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 6:22pm Thrax Good luck selling this to the morass of consumers who expect Windows.
8. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 6:23pm ardichoke From what I've been seeing, it's more likely that netbook manufacturers are going to have it pre-installed as a secondary OS. There's already a few that are coming out with netbooks that dual boot XP and Android.
9. 
   19 Nov 2009 ~ 8:37pm Gargoyle Certainly makes more sense than Android for dual boots.
10. 
    19 Nov 2009 ~ 11:41pm photodude might be interesting to have on dual boot for those web only moments. I also agree Ubuntu is toast thanks to this, but really it was the developers who trashed Ubuntu by having no focus or quality control.
    
    I can see ChromeOS being somewhat popular with a niche crowed, considering how many people want to edit their multimedia on their computer, this is about a decade late.
    
    Unless google has more multimedia tools they have yet to show and can provide video, sound, and photo-editing this is not that exciting
11. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 1:10am Leonardo

    Agreed I see Chrome OS getting adoption on netbooks and in schools, but that'd be about it

    At the onset. But don't for a moment underestimate Google and it's vast resources! If any entity, open or commercial, could develop a viable OS to compete with Windows or OS X, who would be better suited than Google?
12. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 8:04am GnomeWizardd awesome, I am looking at picking up a Netbook next year but I am trying to hold off till Chrome OS comes out
13. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 8:34am Gargoyle

    GnomeWizardd said:

    awesome, I am looking at picking up a Netbook next year but I am trying to hold off till Chrome OS comes out

    It will probably be free, so you could always get one now and put Chrome on later.
14. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 9:57am Cliff_Forster

    Gargoyle said:

    It will probably be free, so you could always get one now and put Chrome on later.

    I'm fairly certain it will be free. Google will leverage Chrome to guide the user to their web services.
15. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 10:41am mirage I think Google got it right and will come up with a compelling product. This is serious threat to Windows; I wonder what are they planning. I see that many here would never give up a full OS but I think majority of the average users could do it for reliability, simplicity, security, portability, ...., and price.
16. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 10:46am Thrax Serious threat to Windows? You've got to be joking.
17. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 10:49am mirage You think so? :)
18. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 10:52am Thrax No, unfortunately.
19. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 11:14am mirage Domination of MS will end, sooner or later. That is for sure; every big company in history lost it. We are not talking about Lindows here. Google is a 180B company (MSFT 270B) and still growing fast. They don't release an OS to compete with Ubuntu.
20. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 11:27am Cliff_Forster

    mirage said:

    Domination of MS will end, sooner or later. That is for sure; every big company in history lost it. We are not talking about Lindows here. Google is a 180B company (MSFT 270B) and still growing fast. They don't release an OS to compete with Ubuntu.

    Robert and I would probably agree that Chrome OS taking any significant market share from Windows or OSX in this product cycle is highly unlikely. I'm not saying it wont end up on some netbooks that Microsoft would have liked to have had, but the reliability and speed required for broaband just is not there yet to trust the cloud 24/7. Thats not to say that its not coming, I just think for this product cycle Windows 7 and OSX will be fine.
    
    Google looks to be laying some extraordinarily compelling groundwork for four or five years from now. If nothing else the competition will force some innovation on how both Microsoft and Apple approach the market. It can only be a good thing.
21. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 11:33am Butters It is still a little premature to assume Chrome OS will amount to anything. I'll give it 3-4 years before I'd consider it a viable contender to OSX/WinX. I think Google is starting to "brand" Google OS now, so in a few years when they release something worth talking about, Google OS would be a household name.
22. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 11:34am AlexDeGruven Serious threat? Not likely in the least. First shot across the bow? Definitely.
    
    Google is trying to make the underlying OS irrelevant. If I could have a netbook with ChromeOS, and still use the same exact apps on my desktop at home via the browser, AND had close to 100% compatibility with desktop-level apps, I'd be happy.
    
    It's going to take a while before a true cloud-based OS can make a real dent, but it will eventually.
23. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 11:40am mirage I did not mean this product cycle either :)
24. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 12:40pm Leonardo

    It's going to take a while before a true cloud-based OS can make a real dent, but it will eventually.

    Maybe:
    
    1) if true, high-speed broadband (advanced cable and fiber) makes it beyond the city clusters, and
    2) if people will want to trust the companies serving up the network-served applications
    
    It will take a long time for 1) to happen. Much of the country is limited slow ADSL. It's also surprising how many people are still on dial-up.
25. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 12:45pm Thrax To realize an efficacious cloud operating system, every home in the United States would need access to FTTH connections capable of delivering in excess of 50Mbps.
    
    ...The FCC's current definition of broadband is 65x slower, to say nothing of all the edge servers that would be required to satisfy the latency requirements needed to produce a complete desktop experience via the cloud.
    
    To dreeeeeeam the impossible dreeeeeeam.
26. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 12:51pm RWB

    Leonardo said:

    Maybe:
    
    1) if true, high-speed broadband (advanced cable and fiber) makes it beyond the city clusters, and
    2) if people will want to trust the companies serving up the network-served applications
    
    It will take a long time for 1) to happen. Much of the country is limited slow ADSL. It's also surprising how many people are still on dial-up.

    
    ^^^this times elevety billion
    
    I know I don't trust the cloud, look at the T-Mobile incident, I'd trust Google more than T-Mobile but only to a point. I like having stuff on MY computer. While many may stream TV shows I prefer to DL them.
    
    This seems to be one of those things that can help a service like Onlive, but for a truely good web application to work or game for that matter(which I'd venture a guess is at least on Google's mind for the future) then we need high bandwidth and virtually no lag.
    
    If anyone can pull the strings to get others on board such as the ISP's, it's Google. But it will take time + more time to build the infrastructure.
27. 
    20 Nov 2009 ~ 1:00pm Cliff_Forster

    Thrax said:

    To realize an efficacious cloud operating system, every home in the United States would need access to FTTH connections capable of delivering in excess of 50Mbps.
    
    ...The FCC's current definition of broadband is 65x slower, to say nothing of all the edge servers that would be required to satisfy the latency requirements needed to produce a complete desktop experience via the cloud.
    
    To dreeeeeeam the impossible dreeeeeeam.

    To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
28. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 5:58am ardichoke I find it quite disheartening how little some of you seem to understand about Linux. You think that just because it only has a small market share, any promising free startup OS is going to wipe it off the map. A couple of you make me :tim: when you talk about Linux... you just don't get it. People use Linux to do a LOT more than just get online.
    
    ChromeOS is being made specifically for netbooks, most people that run Linux run them not only on their netbook but their full sized laptop, desktop, workstation and server. Chrome won't threaten Linux in any big way on any of these platforms.
    Most people running Linux want more than a Cloud OS. They want things like a decent media player or development tools or the GIMP or the ability to run a fileserver and on and on and on. A cloud based OS can't provide that. Not at this point anyway and probably not any time soon.
29. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 10:05am Cliff_Forster

    ardichoke said:

    I find it quite disheartening how little some of you seem to understand about Linux. You think that just because it only has a small market share, any promising free startup OS is going to wipe it off the map. A couple of you make me :tim: when you talk about Linux... you just don't get it. People use Linux to do a LOT more than just get online.
    
    ChromeOS is being made specifically for netbooks, most people that run Linux run them not only on their netbook but their full sized laptop, desktop, workstation and server. Chrome won't threaten Linux in any big way on any of these platforms.
    Most people running Linux want more than a Cloud OS. They want things like a decent media player or development tools or the GIMP or the ability to run a fileserver and on and on and on. A cloud based OS can't provide that. Not at this point anyway and probably not any time soon.

    Ardi, Linux is such a rich and varied community. You have noticed in the past few years there has been a movement making some Linux distro's that are potential windows desktop OS replacements, the most prominent of which is Ubuntu. About little over a year ago you would have found it hard to find a bigger Ubuntu cheerleader than I was. I unborked old hardware for friends and family with it. It is lean and fast with minimal hardware requirements. It does most things people want it to do, and its 100% open, and nobody reasonable would argue against the value of open standards. I still support ID's clinging to OpenGL just from a point of raw principle, I understand it, and so I really want to support Ubuntu, or any Linux distro that can offer a real free, open alternative to Windows and OSX, but its so hard when Windows 7 does absolutely everything I want it to do for a reasonable price, and now its easy and intuitive to set up and use.
    
    I'm sorry, but Ubuntu setup is a chore for anything more than firefox, open office, and the gimp. Guys like us can do it, we can hack it to enable commercial DVD playback, and scour the bowls of the net to find a working printer driver, but Joe consumer just does not want to do that.
    
    Chrome is not going to pretend that Linux is something its not in the desktop space. Its a light weight web OS, and from my experience thats what Joe Consumer may finally find some value in Linux.
30. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 2:24pm ardichoke But Joe Consumer wasn't using Ubuntu in the first place. How can Chrome steal Joe Consumer away from Ubuntu if he's not using Ubuntu? You made the statement that Ubuntu is fucked. No, no it's not. Chrome isn't even putting other Linux distros in it's sights.... except MAYBE eeeBuntu, but that's even unlikely. No Linux distro is likely to be hurt by Chrome OS. Really no OS at all is likely to be affected much as was stated before it is probably going to be relegated to the "I only boot this if I want to check my mail really quick" domain.
    
    As for your qualms with Ubuntu, I don't know what printers you've been using but I haven't had to hunt for print drivers for Ubuntu in years. I don't exactly use a ton of printers but the network ones at work had drivers there and ready that worked. Also, DVD playback is a one liner these days (or a one clicker https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats#Ubuntu%209.04%20%28Jaunty%20Jackalope%29%20and%209.10%20%28Karmic%20Koala%29 ). If you're going to criticize, at least take the time to get the latest Linux criticisms, not the ones from 3 years ago. Linux isn't perfect (no OS is) but the qualms you're listing have, by and large, been addressed quite a while ago.
31. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 4:07pm Cliff_Forster First posting on the re design!!
    
    Ardi, the goal of Ubuntu was obviously to de geekify Liniux for the common man, and they did a great job on many levels, but there are some caveats that make it hard for the windows user to just jump aboard.
    
    Forgive me if I think Google with its nearly unlimited resources will likely make a more compelling Linux distro.
32. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 5:46pm ardichoke That's the thing though, if they put their weight behind actually making a Linux distro I'm sure they would make a compelling one. They aren't. They're making a super-striped down OS, based off Linux, that just gives you access to web apps. The vast majority of the people that actually use Linux need more than web apps. Period. That is why your "Ubuntu is fucked" comment is so wildly off base and just plain wrong.
    
    Also, you think getting a DVD to play is hard in Ubuntu.... try getting a DVD to play in a web app ;)
33. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 6:01pm Snarkasm Try getting a DVD to play in a computer that has no optical drive.
34. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 6:11pm mirage Using Windows for just document editing, multimedia, and internet is like driving a Ford Excursion to grocery. Majority of the computer users pay for extra powerful hardware just to make Windows comfortable. Take netbooks for example, they are perfectly qualified for most, if not all, of the tasks an average computer need to do. But their main hardware deficiency is caused by Windows. Especially with the ION chipset, or whatever AMD might offer, the average home does not need more computing power for anything other than games. Many people I know, actually, play games with their consoles. If Chrome can make the average user happy, I think it has a good chance to grab some market share from Windows. I am not talking about erasing Windows. The market MS is dominating at ~90% is so huge that 20-30% market share is still huge business for any company.
    
    Ardichoke, I am posting from Ubuntu linux now and I love it.
35. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 6:14pm mirage

    Snarkasm said:

    Try getting a DVD to play in a computer that has no optical drive.

    Are you still playing DVD's :eek2: Playing DVD is becoming like listening CD. Netflix works great on my computers and PS3.
36. 
    21 Nov 2009 ~ 6:15pm Snarkasm I haven't played DVDs in about two and a half years (graduated to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray early), but Lord knows the rest of the public hasn't caught up.
37. 
    22 Nov 2009 ~ 12:34am BuddyJ The speculation that Chrome OS would be adopted by folks looking to check email and surf the web is wishful thinking. There are already plenty of quick boot OSs out there. Hell, buy any recent motherboard and it probably comes with one. Even the cheap ECS boards have 'em. And even though they're out there, nobody uses them. There's no reason to move to an unfamiliar environment that you know is limited in its capabilities when you can simply wait a few more seconds and have everything you need.
38. 
    22 Nov 2009 ~ 12:55am lordbean I agree with the opinion that Chrome isn't going to be much of a threat to anyone.
    
    Chrome's primary target is netbooks. The defining reason to purchase a netbook is portability, meaning it may be frequently used away from the owner's home internet connection. In order to run a cloud-based OS, the user has to be connected to the internet. While I can't discount strategic use of public access points, the fact remains that those access points are few and far between. Therefore, in order to be 100% guaranteed you can use your Chrome OS netbook, you need a cell network data plan, and those plans can get arm-and-a-leg style expensive.
    
    Chrome OS may be free, but unless you never take your netbook out of your home, it seems like a bad choice to me.
39. 
    22 Nov 2009 ~ 1:16am mas0n What a lot of people will respond to however, is price. If Google can work with netbook manufacturers to get costs significantly below the competition, even if it means absorbing the costs themselves, they could slowly leverage Chrome OS into the market and it would be well worth their investment.
40. 
    22 Nov 2009 ~ 1:42am BuddyJ Google Chrome OS, turning decent netbooks into high-tech paperweights since 2009.