Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Google?s Chrome OS May Fail Even as It Changes Computing Forever here
Google?s Chrome OS May Fail Even as It Changes Computing Forever
MultiQuote
#2
empirestatebuddy 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 03-June 09
Posted 17 July 2009 - 03:14 PM
Wow. You know the writer is a fanboy when he explains that Google will win, even if it loses. lmfao! That's ludicrous. Honestly, does PCWorld have at least one objective journalist... or at least one who pretends? Seriously. What a joke! I hope you supply your writers with napkins to clean off their screens, because it's pretty clear that they get aroused everytime they write an article about Google's ascent... or Microsoft's demise. (sigh)
#3
daniel142005
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 29-October 08
Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:26 PM
Even though I agree most of the writers on this site are horrible, Chrome OS is also to encourage people to develop HTML5 applications, which in turn will put Microsoft on its toes in the browser market (more so than they are already). I don't believe Chrome OS will "fail", but I don't think it will be as popular as all the hype makes it out to be, at least at first. Google already has projects that allow 3D scenes that look pretty decent that can run in a web browser... and a lot of other stuff that you wouldn't expect a browser to do... so they could truly make the web browser an OS.
#4
Hamranhansenhansen
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 18-June 09
Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:32 PM
Chrome OS is just the 2 things that are most missing from Windows: open source standardized Unix core operating system and open source standardized HTML 5 Web browser. Microsoft is betting against these 2 things being important to the future of computing. Everyone else is betting the other way. It is not just Microsoft vs Google. It's actually Microsoft vs the World as usual.
If you were to drink the Google Chrome OS Kool-Aid and designed and built an application solely to run on Google Chrome OS and nowhere else, your application would also run in these environments as if by accident:
- iPhone
- iPod
- Mac
- Firefox on all platforms, including Windows
- Chrome on Windows, Mac, Linux
- Palm
- Nokia
- Blackberry
- Opera
Notice that the above list covers all PC's, all smart phones, and the most popular music player. The reason for that is that all of the above vendors have been working together for years on a common Web apps platform for the world, which is now called HTML 5.
On the other hand, if you drink the Microsoft Kool-Aid, you can use their developer tools to make various kinds of apps that only run in Microsoft environments such as Windows or Internet Explorer. The problem there, though, is that means you can only run on Windows, which only runs on PC's. And only some versions of Windows at that. No smartphones, no mobiles at all. No deployment to anything but Microsoft products.
Right now, HTML 5 browsers are 35% of the desktop Web and growing and Internet Explorer is 65% and dropping. But HTML 5 browsers are 100% of the smart phone Web. I talk to my Web development clients about this and they are much, much, much more interested in making their sites work on mobiles than on Microsoft. I don't see how we are going to see consumer demand swing back to Windows and Internet Explorer. Plus, it costs so much to develop for Internet Explorer. Who has that money now? A site that cost $250,000 in 2005 to run in IE can be done for $100,000 in HTML 5 and it will be much easier to maintain and grow. Nobody can afford to develop for IE anymore, and then these days you still have to make something for everyone else, for all the mobiles and so on.
Me, I think the future is much more grim for Microsoft than has yet been generally accepted. We should be asking ourselves why a search company like Google can come along and build its own world-class browser and core operating system in the course of a few years and it has features Microsoft is still not even beginning to build. For example, if you compare Chrome OS to Mac OS X, you find that Mac OS X already has all of Chrome's features and much more. With Windows it is still all 1980's computing. You still have DOS instead of Unix and for example in Word you have a Print command but no Publish to Web. People are buying computers in 2009 with the 2001 Windows. Somebody explain to me the best-case scenario for Microsoft over the next few years. I don't see anything good at all.
If you were to drink the Google Chrome OS Kool-Aid and designed and built an application solely to run on Google Chrome OS and nowhere else, your application would also run in these environments as if by accident:
- iPhone
- iPod
- Mac
- Firefox on all platforms, including Windows
- Chrome on Windows, Mac, Linux
- Palm
- Nokia
- Blackberry
- Opera
Notice that the above list covers all PC's, all smart phones, and the most popular music player. The reason for that is that all of the above vendors have been working together for years on a common Web apps platform for the world, which is now called HTML 5.
On the other hand, if you drink the Microsoft Kool-Aid, you can use their developer tools to make various kinds of apps that only run in Microsoft environments such as Windows or Internet Explorer. The problem there, though, is that means you can only run on Windows, which only runs on PC's. And only some versions of Windows at that. No smartphones, no mobiles at all. No deployment to anything but Microsoft products.
Right now, HTML 5 browsers are 35% of the desktop Web and growing and Internet Explorer is 65% and dropping. But HTML 5 browsers are 100% of the smart phone Web. I talk to my Web development clients about this and they are much, much, much more interested in making their sites work on mobiles than on Microsoft. I don't see how we are going to see consumer demand swing back to Windows and Internet Explorer. Plus, it costs so much to develop for Internet Explorer. Who has that money now? A site that cost $250,000 in 2005 to run in IE can be done for $100,000 in HTML 5 and it will be much easier to maintain and grow. Nobody can afford to develop for IE anymore, and then these days you still have to make something for everyone else, for all the mobiles and so on.
Me, I think the future is much more grim for Microsoft than has yet been generally accepted. We should be asking ourselves why a search company like Google can come along and build its own world-class browser and core operating system in the course of a few years and it has features Microsoft is still not even beginning to build. For example, if you compare Chrome OS to Mac OS X, you find that Mac OS X already has all of Chrome's features and much more. With Windows it is still all 1980's computing. You still have DOS instead of Unix and for example in Word you have a Print command but no Publish to Web. People are buying computers in 2009 with the 2001 Windows. Somebody explain to me the best-case scenario for Microsoft over the next few years. I don't see anything good at all.
#6
Lordaiken
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 18-July 09
Posted 18 July 2009 - 04:16 AM
Sure it will be nice for Netbooks, but to claim that it will be impervious to viruses? If you are online, no matter what OS you use, you are always susceptible to viruses. Unfortunately, Google OS won't revolutionize the computing world, I fear it will just be another OS, just like Chrome is just another Web Browser.
#8
wuweizhongyong
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 17-July 09
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:51 AM
who would have thought, more google hate from pc world... nobody knows anything about this OS yet, and you already call it dead.... wtf is wrong with you people...
#9
vinoman
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 18-July 09
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:05 AM
I'm always amazed by people who think they know what a program will be like a year before it comes out!
Until Chrome OS is released and used for a few months (Oct. 2010?), then someone's opinion may mean something. Right now it means nothing. I guess they had nothing to write about and they needed to fill space on the page.
We'll just have to wait and see. :)
Until Chrome OS is released and used for a few months (Oct. 2010?), then someone's opinion may mean something. Right now it means nothing. I guess they had nothing to write about and they needed to fill space on the page.
We'll just have to wait and see. :)
#10
tdigennaro
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 29-November 06
Posted 18 July 2009 - 11:37 AM
I see from the comments that the contradictorian conservatives are still in full force. How long did it take for IBM's mainframe empire to collapse? Not yet. But it slid from center-stage, and so will Microsoft's dominance with Windows.
The big question is: Will the G and W big boys be able to innovate as fast as the little guys? We'll see.
The big question is: Will the G and W big boys be able to innovate as fast as the little guys? We'll see.
#11
middlebass
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 23-December 08
Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:01 PM
After 25 years as a Microsoft customer, I still have no loyalty to the company at all. But I depend on their platforms for all my old MS Office documents as well as a large number of Adobe Photoshop files and many assorted programs that I am familiar with.
I always thought that I would continue to need a high-powered Windows computer to meet the requirements of my Adobe and Microsoft software products but all of a sudden my perspective is beginning to change.
I want to wait until Windows 7 comes out before upgrading my main laptop computer so last spring I bought an Netbook running XP. Much to my surprise I now use that for just about all my email and web browsing, and that could be done on any operating system.
That made me realize that perhaps my new laptop this fall doesn't need as much power as I thought. In fact, a less powerful laptop will have better battery life. So I'm probably going to save money by buying a Netbook and a "high-end" laptop rather than just a "very high-end" laptop.
On the Netbook, I use Photoshop Elements instead of the full Photoshop CS4 on my main laptop. For a few websites I run, I'm increasingly using Joomla, which works on any OS, rather than the web development tools from Microsoft and Adobe. My dependence on a high-end laptop for Adobe support is decreasing.
So the reasons for my continuing to run Windows are becoming fewer and fewer, much to my surprise. If Adobe products begin to move to the newer platforms and Adobe offers an upgrade path to a new platform, Google will have a much better chance. I have over half a dozen Adobe products plus MS Office that are keeping me on Windows. The MS Office product files can move to cloud computing. If Adobe can offer the same, WIndows is really dead.
I always thought that I would continue to need a high-powered Windows computer to meet the requirements of my Adobe and Microsoft software products but all of a sudden my perspective is beginning to change.
I want to wait until Windows 7 comes out before upgrading my main laptop computer so last spring I bought an Netbook running XP. Much to my surprise I now use that for just about all my email and web browsing, and that could be done on any operating system.
That made me realize that perhaps my new laptop this fall doesn't need as much power as I thought. In fact, a less powerful laptop will have better battery life. So I'm probably going to save money by buying a Netbook and a "high-end" laptop rather than just a "very high-end" laptop.
On the Netbook, I use Photoshop Elements instead of the full Photoshop CS4 on my main laptop. For a few websites I run, I'm increasingly using Joomla, which works on any OS, rather than the web development tools from Microsoft and Adobe. My dependence on a high-end laptop for Adobe support is decreasing.
So the reasons for my continuing to run Windows are becoming fewer and fewer, much to my surprise. If Adobe products begin to move to the newer platforms and Adobe offers an upgrade path to a new platform, Google will have a much better chance. I have over half a dozen Adobe products plus MS Office that are keeping me on Windows. The MS Office product files can move to cloud computing. If Adobe can offer the same, WIndows is really dead.
#12
iamsam800
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 11-July 09
Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:21 PM
it is true what he is saying, chrome os is creating a challenge to microsoft to make more web apps, which then hurts microsoft because people will get used to not sing programs on the deskop, either way, microsoft loses
#13
christophertracy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 06-September 07
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:02 PM
I'm amazed how much speculation and outright silly predictions surrounding Google Chrome OS. I'd like to point out a few things... First, Google has a game plan - they always do. A quick jaunt through their "Google labs" will let you know they are already thinking about and indeed addressed the need to synchronize your documents with your desktop. So Tom Spring's suggestion that people in an airport, on a plane, etc. might not be willing to deal with a device that is web only is short-sighted. I can all but guarantee by the time Chrome OS hits the market, users will be able to use Google's products offline - in fact they already do.
Second, Microsoft isn't going anywhere. I like Google about as much as I dislike Microsoft, so I'm looking forward to this battle. However, Google has a very, very long way to go to displace MS anytime soon. So talking about it is a waste of time.
Third, netbooks are the logical starting point for Google. I doubt the OS will be capable of some of the high-end computing some of us need. However, most people with personal laptops don't need to crunch π (pi) to 30,000 decimal places. And they certainly don't need the master-bloat software coming from Redmond, WA.
Microsoft should, in fact be thankful for the competition. Why? Well for one, if Google's OS has been on the market years ago (assuming with significant market share) then MS wouldn't have faced the EU and the giganormous fines for being anti-competitive. In addition, competition in technology sectors is universally helpful to all players as they each take what worked for others and make it their own.
But again, Google hasn't even entered the market yet. They simply announced they intend to. So, until they do, please refrain from jumping to conclusions.
Second, Microsoft isn't going anywhere. I like Google about as much as I dislike Microsoft, so I'm looking forward to this battle. However, Google has a very, very long way to go to displace MS anytime soon. So talking about it is a waste of time.
Third, netbooks are the logical starting point for Google. I doubt the OS will be capable of some of the high-end computing some of us need. However, most people with personal laptops don't need to crunch π (pi) to 30,000 decimal places. And they certainly don't need the master-bloat software coming from Redmond, WA.
Microsoft should, in fact be thankful for the competition. Why? Well for one, if Google's OS has been on the market years ago (assuming with significant market share) then MS wouldn't have faced the EU and the giganormous fines for being anti-competitive. In addition, competition in technology sectors is universally helpful to all players as they each take what worked for others and make it their own.
But again, Google hasn't even entered the market yet. They simply announced they intend to. So, until they do, please refrain from jumping to conclusions.
#14 Guest__*
Posted 18 July 2009 - 07:09 PM
You know why Linux lost to Windows in the Netbook market? People bought the NetBook because of the cheap price, small foot-print and great battery life. As soon as they could not run the applications they wanted, it went back to the store as a return.
Like it or not the software people want is on Windows, not the web.
Chrome will fail as most people are not going to use netbooks in a state of perm connection to the internet. I bought a Netbook and a MiFi from Verizon, but I am still not always connected. Most of the time I am not.
And by the way, Google's free Office tools are the absolute worst. If that's the so-called quality of Google, they can keep it. I need a lot more than that.
Like it or not the software people want is on Windows, not the web.
Chrome will fail as most people are not going to use netbooks in a state of perm connection to the internet. I bought a Netbook and a MiFi from Verizon, but I am still not always connected. Most of the time I am not.
And by the way, Google's free Office tools are the absolute worst. If that's the so-called quality of Google, they can keep it. I need a lot more than that.
#15
daniel142005
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 29-October 08
Posted 18 July 2009 - 07:41 PM
No, Linux lost to Windows because of unfamiliarity and complexity. People are comfortable with Windows, know how to set it up, etc., Linux will have you using the command line for a lot of things, or will name something really weird...
Chrome OS will be different, because you don't have to worry about complexity of linux really... because all you get is a web browser. Which is really all a netbook should have, if you want more than that then you need a Laptop. Hell, it has NET in it! You can not say chrome would fail because no one is going to use a pertinent connection to the internet... if they use it at home (you know, for the kids or whatever) then all you need is Wi-Fi, or a Verizon/Tmo/Sprint/etc. card for wireless internet with an unlimited data plan.
I'm sure (like said in another post) that you will be able to use most of their applications offline as well, Google is good about giving you what you want. Don't know what you want? Well they are good about coming up with a bunch of ideas and seeing which ones people like (Ex: Google/Gmail Labs), so I'm sure it will be covered if its a big request. Not to mention by them announcing it now they are already collecting a TON of feedback and suggestions just from people's reactions to their announcement.
As for Google's free Office tools, is it really the absolute worst? or do you just not know how to use it to its full potential? because for a web based Office suite, it has most of the features built in... Now, Google has said themselves that it needs work, and who knows how much it will change by 2010...
Also, with Google's Native Code and O3D projects, web developers will be able to develop applications that run online but can actually use (securely) the processor on the device. Demonstrations of games and other applications have already been made, Google it. (or Bing it, since your apparently anti-Google) With these 2 projects it could very well be possible for Adobe to port Photoshop to "the browser" (not easily I'm sure, but wouldn't require a complete redesign from scratch). Point is, if the Chrome OS really does support Native Code and O3D then Microsoft may have more to worry about than you would think, of course Firefox and other browsers that run on Windows will be able to run these applications as well.
Chrome OS will be different, because you don't have to worry about complexity of linux really... because all you get is a web browser. Which is really all a netbook should have, if you want more than that then you need a Laptop. Hell, it has NET in it! You can not say chrome would fail because no one is going to use a pertinent connection to the internet... if they use it at home (you know, for the kids or whatever) then all you need is Wi-Fi, or a Verizon/Tmo/Sprint/etc. card for wireless internet with an unlimited data plan.
I'm sure (like said in another post) that you will be able to use most of their applications offline as well, Google is good about giving you what you want. Don't know what you want? Well they are good about coming up with a bunch of ideas and seeing which ones people like (Ex: Google/Gmail Labs), so I'm sure it will be covered if its a big request. Not to mention by them announcing it now they are already collecting a TON of feedback and suggestions just from people's reactions to their announcement.
As for Google's free Office tools, is it really the absolute worst? or do you just not know how to use it to its full potential? because for a web based Office suite, it has most of the features built in... Now, Google has said themselves that it needs work, and who knows how much it will change by 2010...
Also, with Google's Native Code and O3D projects, web developers will be able to develop applications that run online but can actually use (securely) the processor on the device. Demonstrations of games and other applications have already been made, Google it. (or Bing it, since your apparently anti-Google) With these 2 projects it could very well be possible for Adobe to port Photoshop to "the browser" (not easily I'm sure, but wouldn't require a complete redesign from scratch). Point is, if the Chrome OS really does support Native Code and O3D then Microsoft may have more to worry about than you would think, of course Firefox and other browsers that run on Windows will be able to run these applications as well.
#16 Guest__*
Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:16 PM
daniel142005 said:
No, Linux lost to Windows because of unfamiliarity and complexity. People are comfortable with Windows, know how to set it up, etc., Linux will have you using the command line for a lot of things, or will name something really weird...
Chrome OS will be different, because you don't have to worry about complexity of linux really... because all you get is a web browser. Which is really all a netbook should have, if you want more than that then you need a Laptop. Hell, it has NET in it! You can not say chrome would fail because no one is going to use a pertinent connection to the internet... if they use it at home (you know, for the kids or whatever) then all you need is Wi-Fi, or a Verizon/Tmo/Sprint/etc. card for wireless internet with an unlimited data plan.
I'm sure (like said in another post) that you will be able to use most of their applications offline as well, Google is good about giving you what you want. Don't know what you want? Well they are good about coming up with a bunch of ideas and seeing which ones people like (Ex: Google/Gmail Labs), so I'm sure it will be covered if its a big request. Not to mention by them announcing it now they are already collecting a TON of feedback and suggestions just from people's reactions to their announcement.
As for Google's free Office tools, is it really the absolute worst? or do you just not know how to use it to its full potential? because for a web based Office suite, it has most of the features built in... Now, Google has said themselves that it needs work, and who knows how much it will change by 2010...
Also, with Google's Native Code and O3D projects, web developers will be able to develop applications that run online but can actually use (securely) the processor on the device. Demonstrations of games and other applications have already been made, Google it. (or Bing it, since your apparently anti-Google) With these 2 projects it could very well be possible for Adobe to port Photoshop to "the browser" (not easily I'm sure, but wouldn't require a complete redesign from scratch). Point is, if the Chrome OS really does support Native Code and O3D then Microsoft may have more to worry about than you would think, of course Firefox and other browsers that run on Windows will be able to run these applications as well.
Chrome OS will be different, because you don't have to worry about complexity of linux really... because all you get is a web browser. Which is really all a netbook should have, if you want more than that then you need a Laptop. Hell, it has NET in it! You can not say chrome would fail because no one is going to use a pertinent connection to the internet... if they use it at home (you know, for the kids or whatever) then all you need is Wi-Fi, or a Verizon/Tmo/Sprint/etc. card for wireless internet with an unlimited data plan.
I'm sure (like said in another post) that you will be able to use most of their applications offline as well, Google is good about giving you what you want. Don't know what you want? Well they are good about coming up with a bunch of ideas and seeing which ones people like (Ex: Google/Gmail Labs), so I'm sure it will be covered if its a big request. Not to mention by them announcing it now they are already collecting a TON of feedback and suggestions just from people's reactions to their announcement.
As for Google's free Office tools, is it really the absolute worst? or do you just not know how to use it to its full potential? because for a web based Office suite, it has most of the features built in... Now, Google has said themselves that it needs work, and who knows how much it will change by 2010...
Also, with Google's Native Code and O3D projects, web developers will be able to develop applications that run online but can actually use (securely) the processor on the device. Demonstrations of games and other applications have already been made, Google it. (or Bing it, since your apparently anti-Google) With these 2 projects it could very well be possible for Adobe to port Photoshop to "the browser" (not easily I'm sure, but wouldn't require a complete redesign from scratch). Point is, if the Chrome OS really does support Native Code and O3D then Microsoft may have more to worry about than you would think, of course Firefox and other browsers that run on Windows will be able to run these applications as well.
Not at all...
People returned it because they could not install the software they already had. Yeah, that did confuse them, but that's after. Fact is, people have Windows software. They see Windows software. They go to c|net and want to download windows software. It's a huge part of the market and Linux is not. That's the facts.
#17
daniel142005
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 29-October 08
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:01 PM
Quote
Not at all...
People returned it because they could not install the software they already had. Yeah, that did confuse them, but that's after. Fact is, people have Windows software. They see Windows software. They go to c|net and want to download windows software. It's a huge part of the market and Linux is not. That's the facts.
People returned it because they could not install the software they already had. Yeah, that did confuse them, but that's after. Fact is, people have Windows software. They see Windows software. They go to c|net and want to download windows software. It's a huge part of the market and Linux is not. That's the facts.
Except, most of that software can be ran on Linux with Wine, it is possible to run most Windows apps in Linux, and there is usually alternatives to it as well, but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS, sure Linux may be more secure... but theres a trade off at some point, you gotta choose from Security and Simplicity... and I'm sure you can guess which OS is which. If it was strictly the fact that their software doesn't work then how does Apple sell macs? Anyway, back on topic, the reason I think Chrome OS will work is because of its requirements... since it is so minimal, you don't need near as much memory/processing power to run it, even compared to a full blown linux distro. It's main selling point will be price and battery life, since you don't need as much power it won't cost as much and wont use as much battery.
An example use would be in education. I work for an IT dept. at a school and we have considered buying netbooks for every student (they would keep them at the school, but each have their own), but the problem was that we just couldn't find a netbook with a decent size screen and battery life to last the entire school day. Now, with a Chrome OS netbook it should be able to reach 8-10 hours of battery life (hopefully), and the fact that its all web based means that they don't even need their own, they can just grab one and go online. We wouldn't have to worry about viruses or P2P apps being downloaded or anything... Then of course some kids that can't afford a full blown computer or don't have their own (maybe a family computer) will want one, and with their lower price that may be possible...
Honestly, I wouldn't buy a netbook for personal use, I have laptops/desktops for that, but I can see plenty of uses for it.
#18 Guest__*
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:21 PM
daniel142005 said:
> Not at all...
>
> People returned it because they could not install the software they already had. Yeah, that did confuse them, but that's after. Fact is, people have Windows software. They see Windows software. They go to c|net and want to download windows software. It's a huge part of the market and Linux is not. That's the facts.
Except, most of that software can be ran on Linux with Wine, it is possible to run most Windows apps in Linux, and there is usually alternatives to it as well, but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS, sure Linux may be more secure... but theres a trade off at some point, you gotta choose from Security and Simplicity... and I'm sure you can guess which OS is which. If it was strictly the fact that their software doesn't work then how does Apple sell macs? Anyway, back on topic, the reason I think Chrome OS will work is because of its requirements... since it is so minimal, you don't need near as much memory/processing power to run it, even compared to a full blown linux distro. It's main selling point will be price and battery life, since you don't need as much power it won't cost as much and wont use as much battery.
An example use would be in education. I work for an IT dept. at a school and we have considered buying netbooks for every student (they would keep them at the school, but each have their own), but the problem was that we just couldn't find a netbook with a decent size screen and battery life to last the entire school day. Now, with a Chrome OS netbook it should be able to reach 8-10 hours of battery life (hopefully), and the fact that its all web based means that they don't even need their own, they can just grab one and go online. We wouldn't have to worry about viruses or P2P apps being downloaded or anything... Then of course some kids that can't afford a full blown computer or don't have their own (maybe a family computer) will want one, and with their lower price that may be possible...
Honestly, I wouldn't buy a netbook for personal use, I have laptops/desktops for that, but I can see plenty of uses for it.
>
> People returned it because they could not install the software they already had. Yeah, that did confuse them, but that's after. Fact is, people have Windows software. They see Windows software. They go to c|net and want to download windows software. It's a huge part of the market and Linux is not. That's the facts.
Except, most of that software can be ran on Linux with Wine, it is possible to run most Windows apps in Linux, and there is usually alternatives to it as well, but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS, sure Linux may be more secure... but theres a trade off at some point, you gotta choose from Security and Simplicity... and I'm sure you can guess which OS is which. If it was strictly the fact that their software doesn't work then how does Apple sell macs? Anyway, back on topic, the reason I think Chrome OS will work is because of its requirements... since it is so minimal, you don't need near as much memory/processing power to run it, even compared to a full blown linux distro. It's main selling point will be price and battery life, since you don't need as much power it won't cost as much and wont use as much battery.
An example use would be in education. I work for an IT dept. at a school and we have considered buying netbooks for every student (they would keep them at the school, but each have their own), but the problem was that we just couldn't find a netbook with a decent size screen and battery life to last the entire school day. Now, with a Chrome OS netbook it should be able to reach 8-10 hours of battery life (hopefully), and the fact that its all web based means that they don't even need their own, they can just grab one and go online. We wouldn't have to worry about viruses or P2P apps being downloaded or anything... Then of course some kids that can't afford a full blown computer or don't have their own (maybe a family computer) will want one, and with their lower price that may be possible...
Honestly, I wouldn't buy a netbook for personal use, I have laptops/desktops for that, but I can see plenty of uses for it.
yeah, I'm sure those folks buying a netbook know that Wine might work for some apps. Please...
You are truly grasping at straws. It's so simple. They buy a netbook, try to install their AOL CD and it doesn't. So they return it.
#19
daniel142005
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 29-October 08
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:48 PM
Quote
yeah, I'm sure those folks buying a netbook know that Wine might work for some apps. Please...
>
Quote
You are truly grasping at straws. It's so simple. They buy a netbook, try to install their AOL CD and it doesn't. So they return it.
Did I not just say that? lol.
"but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS"
Yup, I did.
Btw, people still have AOL CDs?
#20 Guest__*
Posted 18 July 2009 - 10:01 PM
daniel142005 said:
> yeah, I'm sure those folks buying a netbook know that Wine might work for some apps. Please...
>
> You are truly grasping at straws. It's so simple. They buy a netbook, try to install their AOL CD and it doesn't. So they return it.
Did I not just say that? lol.
"but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS"
Yup, I did.
Btw, people still have AOL CDs?
>
> You are truly grasping at straws. It's so simple. They buy a netbook, try to install their AOL CD and it doesn't. So they return it.
Did I not just say that? lol.
"but the complexity of doing so (or them not even knowing you could) turns them away and continues to make it the geek OS"
Yup, I did.
Btw, people still have AOL CDs?
AOL CD is just an example. And I have tried to use Wine for several basic things. It is truly not the great system people claim it is. It's far easier to run Sun's virtual box. But of course, why buy netbook to run linux so you can load a virtual pc and buy windows for that. Ultimately, linux is simply not ready for the big time. It's fun. It's a neat little project a lot of folks like. But in the end people need Windows.
Sorry I skipped right over your point. It's well taken.
