|
Google launching Chrome Operating System
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 8 July, 2009
According to a very detailed blog entry, Google is planning on releasing a Chrome Operating System, on that will be open source, free and that they hope will rival mature operating systems such as those from Apple and Microsoft.
The full blog post reads:
"It's been an exciting nine months since we launched the Google Chrome browser. Already, over 30 million people use it regularly. ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
xnmalletx
Member
|
8. July 2009 @ 23:34 |
Link to this message
|
maybe something worth thinking about instead of linux
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 00:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnmalletx:
maybe something worth thinking about instead of linux
It's their own GUI on top of Linux...like Mac OS X is their own GUI on top of FreeBSD. I don't really trust Google anymore as far as their software goes...the Chrome online installer (lack of offline installers makes me hesitant) did some odd drive accessing and they DO make their money on advertising/marketing. Still, as long as it might annoy Microsoft! :-)
|
|
windsong
Member
1 product review
|
9. July 2009 @ 00:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mark of the Beast, here we come!
|
Senior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 03:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, if Microsoft Windows is too "Heavy" this will be too "light".
How robust could it be if it runs entirely in the browser?
I mean, I'll give it a look but I doubt it will impact the desktop market at all.
Netbooks? Sure, but they aren't really computers, more glorified PDA's.
I can see a future where the majority of the public uses this lightweight stuff and then whenever they need something real to be done, they'll be calling up the trusty computer nerd in the family who still uses the archaic Windows XP. :D
Hell, I bet Windows XP will be around in some form (like as a special virtual machine in Windows 7) for quite a long time. Microsoft should take the hint.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 04:56 |
Link to this message
|
Wow! I actually misread before...
This sounds even MORE lame than I originally thought. It sounds like they plan on having a mini-OS with just enough support to run Java constantly running in the background for any 'apps' to run. It seems more like a mega-PDA idea than a mini-PC idea. I think I'd rather have a netbook w/ a plain Linux or XP.
|
|
Venom5880
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. July 2009 @ 09:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
The general public will love this type of thing since the average computer user just spends all their time on the Internet anyway, be it for e-mail, social networking, etc. For home use, this is the type of OS the majority will want since it will practically maintain itself without user intervention.
For the rest of us that actually use our computers for work or games, it won't be enough. More like a novelty OS than anything.
|
Senior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 09:56 |
Link to this message
|
Wow well Google out did chrome b4 they even made it because android will be a hell of alot more robust than this.
i think they should have just stuck to android for netbooks it's plenty fast.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. July 2009 @ 09:56
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
9. July 2009 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
you can only rival a pay OS with a Free OS if.
1. make it user friendly *nix environments for the most part are not.
2. Make sure you have a robust easy to use Hardware Base again *nix environments are some what lacking in this. manually setting up a Soundcard in alsa is not something Joe internets can do.
these two points are what pay OS's have done.
*nix is great when you know what your doing, hell half of the time i think i know what im doing only to wind up reading some 200+ page PDF to find out what i am doing(and what i shouldn't have done).
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
honestly it sounds like i will never use it, but obviously its going to be faster and less buggy than xp when it comes to running on slow hardware. why else would they design something new when they could have just used android.
this will be a better ui than android for the netbook. but netbooks are pretty much worthless to me anyway. i can get my frustration from other places, i dont need to pay 200-300 for it.
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
afterdawn, i never noticed how slow you guys were at getting out articles. ever since i started reading tech news more often, i realized this site has articles written on average 24-48 hours after everywhere else
|
Member
12 product reviews
|
9. July 2009 @ 12:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't see what everyone's problem is with Microsoft. There are other OS's. If you do not like MS then use a different one. Has Microsoft screwed many things up? Yes. Have they bought companies with potential and then let them die? Yes. But many of their products are good.
If you do not like MS, then I certainly do not see how you can like Google. Google may seem to be "free," but sorry to break the new to you--very little is ever free. Google is the Big Brother. They want to collect every single piece of info on you and sell that to their advertisers. Their excuse is that it is anonymous. It is not.
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
Mac OSX is not a GUI on top of FreeBSD. It uses the same unix Mach kernal.
Earlier versions used SOME PIECES of FreeBSD but I highly doubt they exist in the latest version.
The stability of FreeBSD has nothing to do with the stability of OSX.
|
|
vodmeiste
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. July 2009 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ThePastor:
Netbooks? Sure, but they aren't really computers, more glorified PDA's.
Netbooks are simply small notebook computers.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 16:36 |
Link to this message
|
I would love to use a different OS than Microsoft. Unfortunately, most games only support DirectX instead of open standards so you're pretty much stuck with Windows if you do any PC gaming whatsoever. Trying to run Windows games in Linux under Wine is a crapshoot at best. Even my wife, who isn't a real gamer, wants to be able to run at least a few games on her machine.
|
Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 17:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
MS destroyed usability with Vista. The memory problems. The search engine disaster. Having to click 20 times to do the simplest tasks. The failure to remember folder settings. The credentials problems. One minute you have access to something, the next minute you don't. Windows 7 is faster but save for the new taskbar it's just Vista on steroids.
MS should have gone back to the XP code and fine tuned it to todays standards.
I would drop Windows in a second. The problem is that many of the apps I run are propriety and only compatible with Windows. So I'm stuck. It's easy to say love it or leave it but that's not an option for many.
|
|
bushbuggy
Newbie
|
9. July 2009 @ 18:34 |
Link to this message
|
There is a company that is working on something similar, they currently have a cloud OS installable in Windows;
They are also designing a bootable OS to install to netbooks etc I think it will be based on Linux?
The site is http://cnasoft.com
|
Junior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
First the internet. Now the world!
|
Senior Member
|
9. July 2009 @ 19:01 |
Link to this message
|
Wifey has a Asus EeePC 1000H and it's bloody excellent. I can tell you it's more than just a glorified PDA. One of the best things about it is that it runs XP as opposed to Fistup.
I'm tempted to just this a go as an alternative OS to run on it- but like many others I'm suspicious of Google. The idea that keeping all our files online and that it being fast as accessing them off a hard drive (especially large ones) is a bit much. Plus I have to pay for bloody bandwidth, download limits etc.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. July 2009 @ 22:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
unless they pay or manage to get most windose apps to run on it without much effort its kinda moot.....
|
|
mehrotra0
Newbie
|
10. July 2009 @ 09:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Dear Sir, Being a die hard fan of Google (in all its forms)since the day Google was first launched, I personally feel that Google should provide us this OS in order to try and evaluate so that it doesn't fall back on its nose. Limited trials before launch are quite O.K but it's the feed back required to judge the pulse of users. I am sure that my suggestion would be considered seriously.
With due regards to all the members of developer team along with prayers for its success;
Mehrotra
|
Senior Member
|
10. July 2009 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've had second thoughts...
We mostly leave the EeePC in standby with FF up and running- so it's net-ready in a few secs normally... an occasional reboot is required about 5-10% of the time.
I happily use most Google stuff but would not touch it's "Desktop" app with a bargepole.
If I used this OS I would be forced to put up with directly targeted ads sucking up my bandwidth- instead of the billboard free highway I surf now with FF.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. July 2009 @ 05:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
MS destroyed usability with Vista. The memory problems. The search engine disaster. Having to click 20 times to do the simplest tasks. The failure to remember folder settings. The credentials problems. One minute you have access to something, the next minute you don't. Windows 7 is faster but save for the new taskbar it's just Vista on steroids.
MS should have gone back to the XP code and fine tuned it to todays standards.
I would drop Windows in a second. The problem is that many of the apps I run are propriety and only compatible with Windows. So I'm stuck. It's easy to say love it or leave it but that's not an option for many.
XP was not 64-bit, it is obsolite and suitable only for obsolite systems, netbooks, and super-cheap-o desktops. There was a 64-bit version of XP, but it did not have the reliability of XP86, and it was just a stripped down version of Windows 2003 X64.
Windows 7 is just a tuned-up version of Vista, but thet is not necesarrily a bad thing. They did a very good job of cleaning out the trash, and Windows 7 x64 seems to be both faster and more stable than XP64, plus it has better driver support.
"Tuned-up" and "tweeked" can be a very good thing...that's why nLite was writen.
I have to say that at first read this was a very scarry article; for a second I thought they might be able to take market share from Windows or Linux...but there is a massive flaw in their marketing: Novice users do not want to have to upgrade/install an operating system, and power users will not touch such a weak operating system (there are phones with more capabilities).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. July 2009 @ 05:29
|
Member
|
11. July 2009 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
MS destroyed usability with Vista. The memory problems. The search engine disaster. Having to click 20 times to do the simplest tasks. The failure to remember folder settings. The credentials problems. One minute you have access to something, the next minute you don't. Windows 7 is faster but save for the new taskbar it's just Vista on steroids.
MS should have gone back to the XP code and fine tuned it to todays standards.
I would drop Windows in a second. The problem is that many of the apps I run are propriety and only compatible with Windows. So I'm stuck. It's easy to say love it or leave it but that's not an option for many.
XP was not 64-bit, it is obsolite and suitable only for obsolite systems, netbooks, and super-cheap-o desktops. There was a 64-bit version of XP, but it did not have the reliability of XP86, and it was just a stripped down version of Windows 2003 X64.
Windows 7 is just a tuned-up version of Vista, but thet is not necesarrily a bad thing. They did a very good job of cleaning out the trash, and Windows 7 x64 seems to be both faster and more stable than XP64, plus it has better driver support.
"Tuned-up" and "tweeked" can be a very good thing...that's why nLite was writen.
I have to say that at first read this was a very scarry article; for a second I thought they might be able to take market share from Windows or Linux...but there is a massive flaw in their marketing: Novice users do not want to have to upgrade/install an operating system, and power users will not touch such a weak operating system (there are phones with more capabilities).
Windows 7 may be fast but the interface and usability is horrible. I'm referring to the interface, not the speed. Just because something is fast, doesn't make it user friendly. XP was a lot simpler. They should have left XP's interface and put Windows 7 code in there.
Microsoft was on crack when they released Vista, and Office 2007 for that matter. Who ever heard of having to select 'Menu View.'
A lot of people are raving about Windows 7 because it sucks less than Vista. But sucks still sucks. So now when I click 5 times to do a simple task it takes 4 seconds instead of 6. Big deal.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. July 2009 @ 13:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
ChiefBrdy
Windows 7 may be fast but the interface and usability is horrible. I'm referring to the interface, not the speed. Just because something is fast, doesn't make it user friendly. XP was a lot simpler. They should have left XP's interface and put Windows 7 code in there.
Microsoft was on crack when they released Vista, and Office 2007 for that matter. Who ever heard of having to select 'Menu View.'
A lot of people are raving about Windows 7 because it sucks less than Vista. But sucks still sucks. So now when I click 5 times to do a simple task it takes 4 seconds instead of 6. Big deal.
I dunno windose 7 seems on track to me, ya they could do more with the GUI IE make it easier to use but meh there's no real alternative and at the end of the day it is better than XP, that and I refuse to pay for a windose OS means I will use it regardless and not feel guilty about being taken for a ride. :P
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
11. July 2009 @ 18:39 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
ChiefBrdy
Windows 7 may be fast but the interface and usability is horrible. I'm referring to the interface, not the speed. Just because something is fast, doesn't make it user friendly. XP was a lot simpler. They should have left XP's interface and put Windows 7 code in there.
Microsoft was on crack when they released Vista, and Office 2007 for that matter. Who ever heard of having to select 'Menu View.'
A lot of people are raving about Windows 7 because it sucks less than Vista. But sucks still sucks. So now when I click 5 times to do a simple task it takes 4 seconds instead of 6. Big deal.
I dunno windose 7 seems on track to me, ya they could do more with the GUI IE make it easier to use but meh there's no real alternative and at the end of the day it is better than XP, that and I refuse to pay for a windose OS means I will use it regardless and not feel guilty about being taken for a ride. :P
Case and point. Change icon text color:
Right click desktop
Select Personalize
Select Windows Color and Appearance
Select Open classic appearance properties for more color options
Select Advanced
Click arrow bar
Select Icon
Change color.
Instead of simply right clicking the desktop, select personalize and have all of the options on one page you have to go through 8 steps to do a simple task. And THAT is for people who know where to look.
And what's up with Open and Open all Users now in w2k7? I guess they didn't think one click was enough. Nowwwwwww you have to click start then right click all programs where before all you had to do was right click start. It's ridiculous.
|
