Comments on: What is Google ChromeOS, I mean really ?

By: David Ball

David Ball — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:14:02 +0000

I say it would be neat to see a web server running in the ChromeOS background. With a proper structure, you could actually install local-only web apps to a locally running web server. In other words, when ChromeOS meets EyeOS, then you effectively have a complete web OS. Thats my two cents.

By: SNP

SNP — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:38:25 +0000

I don’t think ChromeOS will hurt Windows too much either because they cater for different niches, but it will hurt Microsoft’s monopoly control of the desktop and nullify Microsoft’s attempts to control the cloud and the Internet. If you have two popular platforms, then content providers will have to standards that will allow universal access, and bang goes Microsoft’s market control through proprietary lock-in.

By: Stefano Forenza

Stefano Forenza — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:34 +0000

SNP: thanks for your opinion.

I didn’t state that ChromeOS will dual boot, I stated that that would be pretty obvious (too me and other people) move.
The opposite seems pretty much unlikely to me. But if what you say is true (super cheap machines), that could happen.

As for the rest I keep believing that ChromeOS won’t hurt Microsoft main business but a little bit for the next few years. The only stake to Microsoft will be yet another stake to mainstream users perception that Windows and Office are the “standard if not only computing model”.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:41 +0000

jezra, check out eyeOS, 2.0 is due out in Jan. 2010 with BIG improvements. It’s a cloud server and can be mated with gOS as the thin clients.

By: SNP

SNP — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:44:36 +0000

Mr. Stefano Forenza

You have some of your basic facts wrong. Google have never said they would be dual booting ChromeOS with Windows as a splashtop (although I for one would like to see them do that). They have said that they will be sold as separate devices.

They will also be installed on very cheap machines – cheaper than current netbooks, because the hardware requirements are going to be pretty minimal with nothing running locally – think very low cost and very long battery life. They will also be able to run local applications – either offline apps using google gears, or Linux apps using plug-ins and the ChromeOS equivalent of ActiveX that Google has been talking about.

ChromeOS will also be maintenance free unlike Windows, Mac, or Linux, because it is stateless. This is its big selling point – Internet to go – no viruses/malware or anti-virus programs , no configuration, no regular maintenance and updates etc. a “just works” device in the true sense, rather than “only just works” in the Windows sense.

Google Chrome OS will be wildly popular unless Microsoft can intervene in the market to cut a deal with OEMS to prevent them from preloading it like they did with Linux netbooks which were popular until Microsoft’s deal to effectively pay OEMS not to put Linux on netbooks. Microsoft has defined a netbooks as a special hardware category with defined hardware specs on which Microsoft charges a nominal amount for Windows OEM licenses and then provides rebates so Windows is effectively cheaper than free. This predatory pricing is subsidised by the Microsoft Windows licenses paid on other higher end desktop and laptop machines which do not meet the hardware specs to qualify for the subsidy. This is why Microsoft’s revenue took a big tumble as a result of Linux netbooks being introduced.

By: hansboit

hansboit — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:36:39 +0000

Stallman is already gone ape shit about this ridiculous cloud mania (not ChromeOS in particular), and I think he’s right. We’ll eventually lose our freedom. Google (or someone else) will control not only our data but our source code also. There’s enough to go ape shit.
Ciao.

By: ghabuntu

ghabuntu — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:10:05 +0000

Hi Steff
First of all I think the overhyped ChromeOS will do no harm to Ubuntu. However, I see Google staking their massive reputation on this. They stand to lose a lot should things go haywire. What I think they should have done was to have given users a prelim release. Something to give people a feeling of what is to come, rather than give us some stupid screen shots and ask us to wait for a whole year.
In any case, why wait for a whole year? Are they not working with the Ubuntu developers who produce two distros in 12 months? Why do we have to wait one whole year for a browser called an OS? I surely think there is more to this than Google is telling us. Otherwise, I think ChromeOS will be the biggest tech failure of the 21st century.

By: Stefano Forenza

Stefano Forenza — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:57:05 +0000

Jezra: I guess such OS is targeted to mainstream users, not IT departments.
I think IT departments would be better of with existing thin-client solutions or light-weight stuff like xubuntu/lubuntu.

By: jezra

jezra — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:59:20 +0000

Dual boot? In that case, what’s the point if there are no cost saving for the consumer?

In my imaginary scenario, a private webserver is the OS and and the “instant on” ChromeOS machines are just thin clients. If the IT department wants to install new software, they will only need to install a new web-based application on the private server.
Similary, the IT department would only need to worry about backing up one machine.

By: Stefano Forenza

Stefano Forenza — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:12:22 +0000

Jezra: you miss-read. ChromeOS will be shipped dual-booting with windows (so you’ll eventually pay the OEM Windows license).

Of course it is possible for a vendor to sell just ChromeOS, but then you, as an IT department, are stuck with a inflexible OS than doesn’t allow to install anything on it. That may cause you to spend a *lot* of money when the first change of requirements happen.
You’d be much better off installing Xubuntu or gOs on your corporate netbooks.