Week in review: Browser breakthroughs

It was a busy week in the worlds of browsers and operating systems, as Google proved--with its unveiling of the browser-based Chrome OS--that the two are colliding.

Imagine a computer experience that's much like TV: flip a switch and it's on. That was the vision conveyed by Google Vice President of Product Marketing Sundar Pichai Thursday as he offered the public its first look at Chrome OS, the new operating system based on the company's Chrome browser.

Chrome OS eliminates the boot loader and optimizes the kernel so that all the services that normally load with an OS start-up don't load until they are needed, Pichai explained.

Screenshot tour of Chrome OS (images)

Although Chrome OS is a year away from release, Google released the source code for the project on Thursday. It also relayed, through it's demo of the OS, a bit about how it thinks the Netbook should evolve. For one thing, Google plans to develop a detailed specification of hardware components that Chrome OS Netbook makers must adhere to in order to use the operating system.

"We really want software to understand the underlying hardware," Pichai said.

The Chrome OS unveiling came on the heels of sneak previews from Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. Among those was the release of an Office 2010 beta, with new features such as a mechanism for connecting Outlook to social networks.

The software giant announced plans for the formal launch of Windows Azure, the cloud-based operating system that lets developers write programs that run on servers in Microsoft's data centers. It will be in production for all users starting January 1.

And Microsoft showed it's serious about building a competitive browser with the first glimpses of technology in Internet Explorer 9.

Not to be forgotten in the browser wars, Firefox maker The Mozilla Foundation, reported revenue grew 5 percent to $79 million in 2008. The organization also noted that it's not interested in building a Firefox OS.

More headlines

Feds: Top e-tailers profit from billion-dollar Web scam

An investigation by a Senate subcommittee says millions of Americans were "tricked" into signing up for online membership clubs and were betrayed by many Web retailers.

AT&T loses first legal battle against Verizon ads

A federal judge has denied AT&T's request to force Verizon Wireless to stop running advertisements comparing the operators' 3G wireless networks.

AOL: We need to fire 2,500 'volunteers'

Layoff program begins December 4, just before spinoff from Time Warner. AOL says cuts will drop its annual operating expenses by $300 million.
• Nokia to lay off up to 330 R&D staffers
• AOL to sell MapQuest, maybe to Microsoft?
• AOL to spin off Dec. 9, begin trading Dec. 10

Antitrust concerns linger in Google Books deal

Opponents of Google Books settlement say the search giant will still have exclusive rights to digitize orphaned out-of-print works.
• Judge sets February hearing for new Google Books deal

Modern Warfare 2 tops entertainment industry, not just games

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was one of this year's most anticipated titles, but Activision figures now estimate that its launch was even bigger than expected.

Ballmer: Windows 7 selling like hotcakes

At Microsoft's shareholder meeting, the CEO says the OS has sold twice as fast in its early days as any prior version of Windows. He also takes a few shots at Apple.

Computer glitch slows U.S. air travel

A computer glitch causes flight delays and cancellations Thursday morning, but the FAA says that its main flight processing system is now back up and running.

Consumers to plug into home energy displays?

Dozens of companies are prepping tech to help consumers find ways to save energy, but it's hard to say which approach will stick.
• Photos: Home energy displays show you the juice
• California approves efficiency mandate for TVs

Also of note
•  IBM: Computing rivaling human brain may be ready by 2019
•  Paul Allen diagnosed with cancer
•  The 411 on early-termination fees (FAQ)
•  Al Gore: Our next power grid will be like the Net
•  Next year's Flip will do Wi-Fi

[Thad Boyd]

"Google plans to develop a detailed specification of hardware components that Chrome OS Netbook makers must adhere to in order to use the operating system."<br /><br />Hrm -- I'm a little ambivalent on this one. It's not like it's an Apple level of control over hardware, but it's still a potential threat to innovation and user choice.<br /><br />On the plus side, it should ensure a positive hardware experience for end users, and since ChromeOS is open-source, anyone who wants to run it on unsupported hardware can fork.

[SiliconValleyJoe]

Google is right to need this. To start, minimum CPU, RAM, graphics, bandwidth and such will be important. No use having a Chrome OS that runs slow because of slow CPU or insufficient RAM or poor graphics or low bandwidth. I do not understand what you all want. It sounds like everyone thinks they know more about OS than the people who make them? <br /><br />As for Apple controlling hardware, I am confused. So if you can walk into an electronic store, buy all the parts to build your own PC, you are "not controlling" the hardware? I have no clue what this means. If you meant to write that Apple does not license its OS, then that is just old tired whine at best and deliberate ignorance at worst. <br /><br />Apple makes hardware so it needs its own software to run its hardware. Sony makes its own CD player, BluRay Player, Amplifier and such, does Sony share its software with LG? RIM makes its phone using its own OS, does it ship RIM OS to Nokia? Did you know that electronic devices from Kindle to a programmable refrigerator to our cars all have software "operating" system running in them? <br /><br />So every single hardware maker that creates its own "operating" system has to license its software? If not, why are you and so many others continue to foolishly single out Apple? Move on already to something more interesting.

[Fil0403]

"Hrm -- I'm a little ambivalent on this one." <br />For a supposed open-source OS, I'm not ambivalent, I'm shocked. <br /> <br />"It's not like it's an Apple level of control over hardware, but it's still a potential threat to innovation and user choice." <br />I agree it cannot be compared to how much Apple controls hardware, but I disagree it's a potential threat to innovation and user choice: Windows does the same and I see innovation and user choice in W7. <br /> <br />"On the plus side, it should ensure a positive hardware experience for end users, and since ChromeOS is open-source, anyone who wants to run it on unsupported hardware can fork." <br />I agree with the former - it avoid having people installing the OS in underpowered systems and then complaining the OS is slow, like it happened with Vista -, but I'm ambivalent with the latter -- if anyone who wants to run it on unsupported hardware can fork because ChromeOS is open-source, why not let Chrome OS Netbook makers decide on their own (they should know better than most Joes out there)?

[Fil0403]

@ SiliconValleyJoe: <br /> <br />"Google is right to need this." <br />I disagree: MS is right to need this - Win is not open-source -, Google is not - Chrome OS is open-source. <br /> <br />"To start, minimum CPU, RAM, graphics, bandwidth and such will be important." <br />All that is important any time with any OS (that is something that some people apparently magically forgot when using Vista), the question is whether you should enforce them or not, and I think Google shouldn't, because Chrome OS is open-source. <br /> <br />"No use having a Chrome OS that runs slow because of slow CPU or insufficient RAM or poor graphics or low bandwidth." <br />IMO if Chrome OS is open-source, the user should make that call, not Google (again, that's a possibility some people apparently magically didn't think of when bashing Vista because "it's slow"). <br /> <br />"I do not understand what you all want." <br />I want MS, Apple, Google, and Linux developers to develop a free OS together, but, since that is utopia, I consider myself happy with an OS that is easy to use, friendly, reliable, safe, secure, stable, gives me a wide software and hardware choice, and offers me good free support when I need it - that's why I peronsally use W7. <br /> <br />"It sounds like everyone thinks they know more about OS than the people who make them?" <br />Agreed, that's why, being a Win user and Win not being open-source, I sometimes get amazed how many people bash MS for decisions they make regarding Win. <br /> <br />"As for Apple controlling hardware, I am confused." <br />Try upgrading the graphics card in a Mac or chaning the battery in a Mac or an iPhone and, if you know anything about IT and you are unbiased, you probably won't be anymore. <br /> <br />"So if you can walk into an electronic store, buy all the parts to build your own PC, you are "not controlling" the hardware?" <br />No, that's probably why he mentioned Apple (you can't walk into an electronic store and buy all parts to build your own Mac) and not MS (you can walk into an electronic store and buy all parts to build your own PC). <br /> <br />"I have no clue what this means." <br />Try walk into an electronic store and buy all parts to build your own Mac and, if you know anything about IT and you are unbiased, you'll probably get a clue. <br /> <br />"If you meant to write that Apple does not license its OS, then that is just old tired whine at best and deliberate ignorance at worst." <br />That's what I think of not allowing companies to include free software developed by them in software developed by them and forcing them to advertize rival software in their own software, but I think he's not complaining about the fact that Apple doesn't license its OS (IMO Apple has every right not to license its OS - they made it, they decide that), but complaining about the fact that even after (over) paying for a Mac or an iPhone, you can't do something so mundane as replacing the battery or upgrading the display adapter in a Mac; if you don't understand that, then that's just old tired Apple fanboyism at best and deliberate ignorance at worst. <br /> <br />"Apple makes hardware so it needs its own software to run its hardware." <br />Apple makes practically no hardware that comes with a Mac (in fact, nowadays a Mac is almost 100 % the same hardware as a common PC), so no, it doesn't need to its own software to run "its" hardware, and proof of that is that you can run Win on a Mac without a virtual machine. <br /> <br />"Sony makes its own CD player, BluRay Player, Amplifier and such, does Sony share its software with LG?" <br />No, nor does it need to; Sony makes its own console as well and it runs on Linux (not developed by Sony, mind you) and you can replace the included hard disk drive alone without voiding any kind of warranty - try to do that on a Mac. <br /> <br />"RIM makes its phone using its own OS, does it ship RIM OS to Nokia?" <br />No, nor does it need to, making their own OS is simply a choice they made; Motorolla makes their phones as well and many don't use their own OS, they use Win Mobile. <br /> <br />"Did you know that electronic devices from Kindle to a programmable refrigerator to our cars all have software "operating" system running in them?" <br />Yes, did you know there's a (big) difference between firmware and an OS and another (big) difference between a Kindle or a refrigerator and a computer? <br /> <br />"So every single hardware maker that creates its own "operating" system has to license its software?" <br />No, nor do they need their own software to run on their own hardware. <br /> <br />"If not, why are you and so many others continue to foolishly single out Apple?" <br />He's not foolishly singling out Apple (you are, actually), he's stating that forcing minimum hardware requirements is not an Apple's level of control over hardware, which is IMO true for any unbiased person who knows Apple and has a hint of the IT market. <br /> <br />"Move on already to something more interesting." <br />I dare to guess that's what he (and I) did buy not getting a Mac or an iPhone (although I personally am a proud and happy owner and user of iPod/iTunes).

[Fil0403]

I applaud Google's move, competition is always good (if it wasn't for Apple we probably wouldn't have such a good OS as W7), although I think they have no chance against Win (especially W7), maybe they can steal some market, sure (as they say in these cases, Win is the only one that has the market to lose anyway), but IMO that is as high as they can dream to go, IMO they'll be competing with Apple for the 2nd place.

[seven7dust]

IMO chrome O.S should have been made into a app for Windows and OSX, rather than a whole new O.S <br />I agree with google that the browser doesnt cut it anymore, it was designed way back in the 80s <br />and using it to run web apps , visit websites, check rss feeds , email and social networking <br />is cumbersome <br />which is why I use a combination of 10-20 differnet programs do get my internet realated work done. <br />With chrome o.s it would be possible to do everything with just one app and since everything is in the cloud I could use it anywhere on any machine making it ideal for people on the move <br /> <br />it's a great idea just the wrong implementation cause computers are more than the internet !