[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Five Questions About Google Chrome OS here

[preppypauper]

I think the Google vs. Microsoft battle is going to be won or lost based on what people are doing on their computers. You really don't need a full-fledged PC to access the web. On the other hand, if you are completing processor and memory extensive tasks like editing complex documents or playing games, you need a full fledged computer, OS and installed applications...for now. In the future, those applications will slowly migrate to the web where email, calendars and basic document creation have already migrated. I think the future belongs to a computing experience that will be almost, if not completely web based.

[ekeefe41]

FYI

The G1 supports 16gig sd cards.

[Candide08]

One question is WHY didn't Apple do this years ago?
If Apple had supported hardware other than their own they could have been a real challenger to MS.
Instead they ran in their safe little closed-system and left MS to dominate.
Let's hope Google has much better strategic vision than Apple.

[wewe]

I use a Linux distro daily and experience no limitations in my computer life. No anti-virus, no hassles, and elegant. The same can't be said to the poor Windows user I need to visit this afternoon to try to resuscitate his downed XP machine.
MS is doomed.

[DVSMan]

While overall the review was informative, I just wanted to post that this is an OS review and the writer decides to reference MS Word, a very pricey standalone app, & compare it to a newbie FREE app like Google Docs?

Like any other app, if there is enough market saturdation / critical mass for a new OS - a smart company will port there app to it - otherwise the vacuum will be filled by a competitor.

It was not so long ago that the market champ was Word Perfect (and Lotus) and everyone thought they were juggernauts ... but today we can see how that turned out. So we can say with some certainty that no app or company is truly immune.

Whether it was MS's control of both the OS and the apps that granted them such momentum in the market during Window's evolution or not, no one can say with 100% certainty, but it does seem likely doesn't it?

I can only imagine what would happen to MS and the marketplace if Apple released (willingly) OS X for the PC given its pre-established userbase on the MACs. Software (& game) developers would have no problem jumping ship from Windows to OS X.

Bottom line - if games / popular apps can run on it - people will buy it / switch to it / use it - whether it's called Windows 7, OS X, Google Chrome or *nux.

[brandondrew]

So your argument about Macs and viruses is basically:
"In theory, you can get a virus on a Mac, so don't bother me with the facts that no one ever does, because all that matters is the fact that theoretically they are no more secure than Windows"
There are many reasons a Mac IS much more secure, but never mind that. The fact that COULD get shot living in a safe neighborhood where you know and can trust all your neighbors and have a good security system in your house doesn't mean you ought to go live in a seedy area known to have gangs, and that you should leave your door unlocked and a big sign on your door advertising that you've got lots of money inside.
The facts of what DOES happen is much more important than the theory of what COULD happen.

[aarons]

I think you might be completely missing who would want to use this kind of OS. It sounds perfect for an inexpensive Netbook, where the primary purpose is to be able to quickly websurf and check emails on the go.

I don't care if these machines have enough processing power to run Windows or not, have you tried to start one up with a decent level of security on it in a coffee shop lately? By the time I'm up on the web, I've finished my coffee. My Mac laptop starts up in a fraction of the time the PC does, but then again it costs twice as much, so it better. An option that costs like a PC and runs like a Mac would be excellent.

The argument about viruses is a bit of a red herring. Anyone who bothers to know anything about computers knows that any operating system is subject to viruses. The question is how likely am I to actually get tagged by one. With the PC I know I'm at risk every time I log on. With the Mac I'd have to just about go searching for one. The same could be said about Chrome OS for the time being. Again, on a machine half the cost of my Mac.

I don't think this system is going to challenge Windows for traditional computing uses, but I could definitely see it carving out a niche market for itself.

[LBmarc]

This review/reviewer seems extremely biased. He Picks apart Google Chrome OS without really seeming to have any real knowledge, real world experience or facts about the OS.
Probably 80% of computer users use their computer almost exclusively as internet device.
There most certainly will be a big place for cheap or free OS that maximizes this computer use model.
My own personal Windows XP PC (IBM Thinkpad T60); takes 5 full minutes to boot up and 3 minutes to turn-off. Maddengly frustrating!
I would definitely be in the market for a 2nd cheap PC set up with Google Chrome OS; that could be an internet (mostly) device with nearly INSTANT-ON capability.

[jugosk]

Practicality:
Chrome OS is being built for netbooks and eventually desktops, Android is the MID solution from Google. Versus Microsoft Word, I'm sure Google will improve the functionality of what you can do with it on Chrome OS, it may take a while for it to beat Word, but as a free alternative, it's pretty amazing what it can do with just a browser, I can only imagine what it will be able to do once Google can run native code on it.
Virus-free:
Of course nothing is virus-free, but with an open source community backing the OS, not to mention Google engineers, the security will be really tight and being build on top of Unix will be a huge advantage.
Devices:
I don't know the cost of their netbooks, but the OS software will most likely be free. If major hardware manufacturers get on the ball, then the hardware will be in a similar cost range as Windows minus the cost of the OS software. That means same model netbooks will be around 50-100$ cheaper. As for desktops, building a desktop will definitely save money once it runs on x86. Since its so lightweight, you will be able to buy a cheaper computer with similar functionality.
Downloading:
Chrome OS has just been announced, I believe the third party comment was more referring to hardware, if the hardware can run it, I'm sure you will be able to put Chrome on there.

The world may not be ready for cloud computing, but the upcoming generation sure is.

[TechieXP]

Not sure how old you are, but if you look at history....any company that has dominated a single industry for any close to a 1/2 century don't go down so easily. It takes time...LOTS OF IT.

Here are some familiar household names that have dominated and industry and only in the last decades have found themselves no longer so dominate:

Sears, Walgreens, Carson's, Service Merchandise, Allstate, Toy R US and many others have dominated said industries for years....companies of that size don't go down so easily and even if they aren't number one, they still retain soe sort of huge hold.

MSFT for one won't be so easy to bring down. I fond it so funny that as soon as someone has a good idea that has potential...you're ready to say MSFT is doomed. MSFT is a smart company and have partnered with other greedy companies...they aren't going aywhere. In fact base on listings when it comes to technology...only the govt has more partnerships than MSFT. With that kind of power, you're not going down all that fast. In over 40 years MSFT has managed to have a solid 90% dominance. They would have 99% if they had let Apple die off like I wished they should have.

Apple is hanging on the threads of iPhone. The Mac has never been successful ever...in comparison to PC clones. Apple who had a market of 1/2 what they have now for 40 years and now only doubling it is not even a real competition too MSFT. They simply have a couple competing products.

Chrome OS can simply hit MSFT where they lack a foot hold and that is the Internet. The person who gets there first, could simply crash and burn. Some companies find out the hard way that if you try to push something to fast, no one will adopt it until they want too and it ends up a last cause. Sony learned that with the PS3.

If Chrome OS which is going to be geared towards the web only, means that it won't even be competing against MSFT. Operating System is a very broad term. Any device that uses software to control it is an OS by nature, doesn't mean its going to be good.

We simply have to wait and see.
MSFT will one day not be the dominate player in the computing industry...whether or not it happens in our lifetime is another question.

[dbcad7]

Is Google Chrome OS really practical for anything more powerful than a Mobile Internet Device (MID)?
If it turns out to be a lightweight Linux distro (basicly browser w/online apps) There is nothing stopping people from installing things to the functionality of any other distro... besides you answered the question yourself later in the article, that it would also be for desktops.
Will Chrome OS keep Microsoft up at night?
Linux already did,, XP was supposed to be dropped completely. Netbooks came out with Linux,, they crapped their pants and dropped their plans and re-engineered vista downward to Win7, and they practically give away XP home to netbook manufacturers.
Google says virus free. Really?
What's wrong with that ? .. why so sensitive ?
Will Chrome OS-powered devices be cheaper?
Probably not.. savings gained from what MS charges will go into profit in a market that has such low profit margins.
Will you be able to download Chrome OS like you would any other Linux build?
Why wouldn't you ?

[Nathen]

This is a NO Brainer.

If and a big " IF " google wants to De-thrown Microsoft all it has to do is create an OS that is cheaper and " VERY IMPORTANT HERE" Support GAMES !!

GAMES !! that is it. Forget the rest of the stuff. Linux Pc's , Mac Pcs. All kinds of Pc's with alternative Os's come and go . The 1 Major thing that MS figured out was that the GAMING industry is HUGE.

Wired Mag had an Aritcle once on it and they along with PC WORLD know that the Gaming industry is Massive ( around $30 billion ) world wide in sales or so .

So Unless Google wants to become just another generic flavour of an OS , or another company that has been there done that ( MAC/ Apple ) I suggest they pour thre resources to create an OS that supports ALL the games out there and they will succede where no one else could.

GAMES. Create an OS that you can install and run all the titles out there ( along with the other software of course) and you will have MS running scared.

This is why Linux on a hole will never be dominant, they lack support for games.

[fleminra]

"The fact, is you just can't build an operating system that is fully immune to malware and viruses."
See:
mainly:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security
but also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatoryaccesscontrol
java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/security/AccessControlContext.html

[TonyNC]

I think this will be a "network computer", i.e., terminal and Google will provide the application servers around the world. It is then much easier for them to monetize a free Chrome OS.
They have already developed several apps and I would guess they have more waiting in the wings that will be available when the Chrome OS download is available.

[TonyNC]

Something came up and didn't get to finish my comment.

With many people having faster Internet connections, the time has come for network computing. The user computer can be very simple and designed primarily to be a data storage device. It can be very cheap device. The smarts, i.e. applications are located on application servers and the data resides on the local network computer. The network computer basically runs an Internet browser, Google Chrome in this scenario and that is why I think they say it is based on their Chrome browser.

This makes application maintenance and update much easire since they are centrally located rather that being located on a user computer. With strong data encryption the user's local computer (data storage) is not as vunerable to viruses and other attacks. The applications being located on an application server are very much easier to protect.

Let me hear your thoughts about this scenario!

[TechieXP]

You're funny...but not far off from having a good point. However I wouldn't say gaing is what lead to Windows popularity. What did lead to it was a lower cost to own and a slew of software. Games back then on a PC was so generic that consoles simply lead...even the Atari 2600 was better at gaming then any PC. After Windows 98SE and vendors making better cards did PC's even become game worthy. After Windows XP it was on.

The problem with gaming is power. Gaming still needs a desktop with power for high end graphics. Look at WOW. Even tho it runs from a server to be in the game, you still need a good GPU to see the great graphics in the game. Also not ALL gaes could become web based. However if Google and Sun made an awesome java platform to use in Chrome OS, they could certainly have a bunch or highly scaled iPhone type games to play.

But gaing isn't everything and I doubt you will see MSFt Office for Chrome OS or Adobe Photoshop for Chrome OS...
If Chrome is geared where I think it may go...you would see something similar to Android accept desktop based.

[Californian]

I'm not sure if you remember the PWN2OWN competition you referenced, but I believe Chrome wasn't beaten! Yeah, if anyone has the potential to make an OS with no viruses (even with MS-sized adoption), it is Google.
And with that silly downloading comment, they also didn't mention being able to use sound. Logic dictates you would be able to, but yours says it's possible that you won't.
Good post though. I like having my mind stirred about Google's future domination (and how awesome it will be)!

[bperetto]

First, this is not a new idea. You can get linux installed on a netbook- but people aren't buying them. What is Google going to do better?

They're only claim here is startup time. I don't know about the rest of you, but I just close my laptop lid (Vista HP 64) and it goes to sleep. Anytime I want to hop on the web, it takes less than 10 seconds to be browsing. And, no, I never had a problem reconnecting to WiFi.

So, like the author states- why should I load some gimped, featureless "OS" on a netbook when I could have a real operating system that can do more than surf the net?

I can see putting google's OS on an ultra-low powered appliance- maybe a DVR, DVD player, NAS, heck- even a refrigerator. This is where linux truly accels.

And to add to the whole virus debate- in my, hmm,.. 25 years of using microsoft OSes and other software and being on the net before the web was even conceived, I've only gotten one virus and that's because I didn't patch my system, didn't use an AV program, and I visited a very sketchy warez site. As the author states, NO operating system is malware free- it just takes some common sense to stay out of trouble.

[TechieXP]

Based on your scenario that is a very good therory.

The appz being centralized means the owners would need to upgarde, not you. Since these appz aren't runing on your pc, you assume they would be safer. In therory that would be true...but not realisticly. Here's why. You still will be suing the pc to store other data...music, video, pictures and your personal copies of docs. Cloud computing will not make them safe. In fact they will be vulnerble even more so. Most attacks are done through the web broswer...and they don't require Active X or Flash to work. All they need of for a user to click a link and your pc could be attacked.

Broswer are teh least safe applications on your computer. Unless you use them on a privtae network like an Intrane to view data they are not safe to use. Once you go online you are fair game. Google can no more make it safer for you than MSFT can. One thing I find so funny when people argue how safe a browser is. proof is all of them are less safe than FF and IE..and those 2 are unsafe too. How safe a browser is, is how sart teh user is. Some users don't know the differemce between a PayPal link that was designed to steal your data from a real one. So that therory is out the door.

Broswers use 256 based encryption and yet things can still go wrong. And lessons have taught us that depending on someone else to do what you should be doing? Always fails.

The concept is good...some things obviously could benefit heavily from it, while other things won't. It could certainly use a lower osr Appliance like those introduced back in the 90's and todays Netbooks that are cheaper and scaled down and would eliminate the need for a desktop OS. It will work for many..but not all.

However with Comcast getting faster there are many application that cab become well based as long as they don't require power...in other words CPU or GPU power. If they do then the web won't work...bec it will be slow. You see what data on phones has done to the cell network? Sane would happen if you ove all that from the pc to the internet.