Google has its own plan for Netbooks

Netbooks running Google's Chrome OS might be a little different from the standard Netbook, based on Google's specification requirements.

(Credit: Google)

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--There's still an awful lot about Google's Chrome OS project that remains up in the air, but Thursday's demonstration did reveal a bit about how Google thinks the Netbook should evolve.

At an event here Thursday, Google showed off the browser-based operating system for the first time since announcing it in July. Chrome OS won't be available for consumers to purchase for about a year, although developers can get started playing around with the source code as of today, thanks to the open-source release of the code.

Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management at Google, took about 50 members of the press through a basic tour of Chrome OS that didn't reveal a whole lot more about what was already known about Google's plans for the operating system. The basic look-and-feel of the software greatly resembles the Chrome browser, as expected, and it's designed to provide a fast lightweight computing experience for Netbook users.

Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management for Google, explains Google's vision for Chrome OS Netbooks Thursday.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

But Google did provide some glimpses of what it thinks a Netbook should resemble. For one thing, it 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. Whether he intended to or not, with that statement he revealed that for Google, reinventing the personal computing experience is about more than the software.

How so? Google seems to agree with a fair amount of Netbook users--not to mention Apple COO Tim Cook--that current Netbooks with cramped keyboards and small touch pads aren't going to cut it in the long run. Pichai did not provide specific details, but hinted that users could expect Chrome OS Netbooks to have slightly larger keyboards and screens than some of the current models for sale.

Chrome OS will run on either x86 or ARM processors, giving hardware manufacturers some choices as to how they want to build their systems. But they will have to use solid-state drives based off of flash memory, presumably for performance and reliability reasons, although they won't have to use a lot of memory because Chrome OS is designed to start most data in the cloud with very little local storage.

These Netbooks will be designed with 802.11n Wi-Fi chips in mind, Pichai said. However, a device such as this--designed almost exclusively for online use--may not be as compelling if users are stuck bouncing from Wi-Fi hotspot to Wi-Fi hotspot.

Screenshot tour of Chrome OS (images)

Pichai refused to reveal specific plans for wide-area wireless networking support in Chrome OS Netbooks. WiMax is a conceivable option, but Google hasn't sounded very enthusiastic about WiMax lately. Android chief Andy Rubin recently told CNET that Google is planning that project around LTE, the 4G standard preferred by three of the four major U.S. wireless carriers, and Google declined to participate in the last funding round for Clearwire, in which it has already invested $500 million.

But after the event concluded, Pichai did confirm that Google has at least been talking with wireless carriers about the possibility of supporting Chrome OS Netbooks. This could involve the sale of Chrome OS Netbooks along with two-year wireless data contracts, or some newer form of open access to those networks.

Near-ubiquitous wireless seems like a no-brainer for a device like a Chrome OS-based Netbook, but it raises all sorts of business-model questions about the project. Those details won't likely emerge until Google gets closer to releasing the operating system to its hardware partners but how Google chooses to work with carriers will play a very interesting role in how useful Chrome OS devices turn out to be.

So what might a Chrome OS-based Netbook cost? Google, to no one's surprise, isn't saying. Pichai did say that users could expect to see Netbooks around the current pricing models for systems in the market today, but didn't want to make a prediction because of how component prices can change in a year and in any event Google's hardware partners will likely pay different amounts for their components, depending on the contract they negotiate with suppliers.

Acer's Aspire One D150, a typical Netbook.

(Credit: CNET)

But Chrome OS presents some interesting opportunities for Netbook makers. For one, they won't have to pay to use the operating system, unlike the current model where they pay Microsoft for Windows-based Netbooks. Linux Netbooks are out there, but they haven't made as much of an impact with consumers as the Windows versions.

With the release of Windows 7, Microsoft is believed to be charging Netbook makers more for the basic version of that operating system than it did for Windows XP, squeezing their margins even further than they had already been squeezed in taking on the challenge of building a $300 to $500 system that can run a wide variety of software.

Microsoft declined to comment on the prices it charges Netbook makers for Windows 7. "Microsoft does not publically disclose OEM pricing agreements. In the long-run, however, it's up to the OEM to decide end-consumer pricing for preinstalled hardware," the company said in a statement.

Google's approach will also allow hardware makers to balance the cost savings on the operating system with higher-performing features like solid-state drives and larger screens that could also allow for a greater markup. Microsoft, by contrast, requires that Netbook makers that want to use Windows 7 Starter limit the processing power and size of their Netbooks, which encourages Netbook makers that want to offer more powerful components to ship those systems with the more profitable Windows 7 Home Premium.

Google is a year away from giving its partners the go-ahead to release Chrome OS-based Netbooks, and it's not ready to talk about the companies that may or may not be lining up to do so. But it's not hard to imagine that current Netbook makers will take a long hard look at Chrome OS, and that wireless carriers will also be intrigued about a device that's designed for always-on data networking.

As he was mobbed by reporters following Google's presentation, co-founder Sergey Brin downplayed the competitive aspects of Google's Chrome OS project, saying the company was really focused on improving the computing experience for users.

But make no mistake, Chrome OS is a shot across the bow of the fastest-growing product in the PC market today: the Windows Netbook.

[slickuser]

Linux + Chrome browser in full screen mode...

[01Phyxius]

You're not getting the point of Chrome OS. It's JUST Chrome browser. No other linux parts. No other software. Just a browser. (If you ask me, better off as just an instant-on OS that has a button to boot my main one)

[SpeedPsycho]

@ 01Phyxius,<br />It will still have to communicate with the notebook hardware and have drivers to operate - which makes it an full operating system (albeit a very small one). Google will just try to limit the hardware it comes on to make the package as small and quick as possible - without having to wait for unknown hardware to initialize or running additional crap.<br /><br />SO they may reinvent the wheel and start from scratch - but I wouldn't be surprised if they took some form of linux as a starting point. Someone who's looked at the source can clarify. So yeah, it might just be bare-bones "linux + Chrome browser."

[WinNoMo]

Redmond, start your copiers. Again.

No. clearly you don't understand what an "operating system" does, esp to be claiming that others who know at least something about how a piece of h/w actually works don't understand what Chrome is and "aren't getting the point..." . It will HAVE to have things, like, ah, communicating with processors, caches, storage (of any kind), drivers, etc.etc etc.

[stockyjoe]

So basically this thing can do most of the basics a smartphone can do today. Netbooks are not a PC or MAC replacement. They have a limited purpose and thats about it. Personally I would rather have a real laptop instead of a netbook when Im out on business. So for me this is more a little niche product. Not sure what else it can do for me that my small laptop cant already do or even my smartphone.

[Random_Walk]

Google itself has said that it will use a stripped Linux kernel to boot and run Chrome on top of.

[YankeePoodle]

It is conceptually different from the "traditional OS", it is unfair to compare it with Windows 7. I can only say this "Nice Try Google".

[rwm72]

Perhaps, but I think Google are planning for the medium to long term with this one, where the "traditional OS" is redefined in users minds. <br />The need for a full-blown OS remains obviously, but how prevalent will it be among users in the long term? I think Google are betting on the majority of users not requiring a full blown traditional OS, perhaps at some point over the next decade.

[WriteRight]

No way am I ever going to buy one of these. Any netbook/notebook that needs to be connected to the web to function is absolutely useless to me. I can't afford to wait until I've found a hotspot just to write something or call up some previous correspondence. Sure you could try using 3G-technology if you want to contend with all its connection problems. Cloud computing sucks and always will do. I want all my apps and especially all my docs securely under my fingers on my HD and nowhere else.

[CTO_Dude]

Dudes... seriously... even by Google's admission, this is just a Debian Linux! As per their press announcement: <br /> <br />Chrome OS is a lightweight Linux distribution based on Debian that uses a lot of open-source software: Host AP Linux drivers, PAM (an authentication mechanism), Syslinux (a lightweight bootloader), IBus (Intelligent Input Bus for Linux / Unix OS), ConnMan (Internet connection manager), XScreenSaver. <br /> <br />So tell me... where is the freakin innovation?!?!?! This is just another variant of Linux!

[renGek]

I'm guessing they intend to make chrome OS the operating system of choice for cloud computing. It seems they don't intend to do any type of local machine operations. The OS is basically a browser in full screen mode and at this point really isn't doing a whole lot more than host pages but they are implying it will host applications so its probably just going to call services and not much else.<br /><br />I can't see myself doing just remote computing right now but the landscape could shift and I'm not going to be left behind. If nothing else, chrome os could be a good remote desktop type tool. <br /><br />I wouldn't discount cloud computing. Amazon has made an entire successful business out of it so I'm sure others will want to follow.

[teh_chrizzle]

google gears lets you use web apps and store data locally:<br />http://gears.google.com

[stockyjoe]

Gears doesnt matter. THere is still a roundabout transmission of the data Why should I or why would I want to be required to connect to the web ru use an application? Thats a limitation. What do I do if I want to use my app and Im not connected to the web? What if Im working on a spreadsheet with pretty private company data? I have nothing against web apps. They are the future, but they will NOT replace all applications. Sometimes its just better running an app locally. Especially if you dont want the occasional freezes or if you care about security.

[Random_Walk]

This little creature will have its uses - it's like WebTV, but without the suck factor and the crap resolution.<br /><br />Most folks who want nothing more than a basic computer will find it perfectly useful - if all you do is fart around online with it (no heavy gaming, no particular offline apps that you need, etc), then this little creature will fill the bill perfectly by itself. <br /><br />@CTO_Dude: The innovation isn't in the gear itself, but in how it is assembled and used. <br /><br />A smartphone is innovative because of its form factor and how an OS and UI is pared down to fit it - otherwise it's just a small computer/PDA with a cell radio lashed on. <br /><br />Personally, I'd have no use for one, but There are far too many use cases out there that would - enough to make a very nice market for the things. After all, folks once said that there was no consumer market for smartphones either, but Apple, then RIM and now Google found one and are building a very healthy market of it for themselves.<br /><br />I don't see these little netbooks taking over the world, but I can see them taking out the bottom end of the market in large numbers. Apple is devouring the high-end of the laptop market. Where this leaves Microsoft? I don't know yet, but they're going to have to step up and earn the business, or get squeezed out eventually.

[Random_Walk]

"What if Im working on a spreadsheet with pretty private company data?"<br /><br />I'm fairly sure that corporate usage is going to differ, and that this is largely aimed at the consumer market.

[t8]

Woa hey.<br /><br />Good bye Windows on Netbooks.<br /><br />Chrome OS is better and you can't beat the cost.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

wouldn't say that necessarily but what do people but netbooks for. mostly web-based stuff and an affordable way to connect to the internet. chrome allows the user to manage all their internet activities very well. it will do for many but not all.

[espeed623]

Chrome OS surprisingly will make things easier, actually. I mean, with a web-based MS Office coming out, you won't need to worry about having Windows or Mac. Although I will say, this makes me wonder: how can you store files and whatnot? =/

[Super2online]

Your summation is hilarious. Godbye Windows on Netbooks. You and what internet connection is going to make that happen. Earth to t8: no internet connection means you have a BRICK!

[Rolker]

So,Chrome OS probably use all these nice Google software. Mmm, sounds like Microsoft that "everyone" is complaining about, putting their own software in their OS and not giving us choice.<br />Will the users be able to use other software alternatives with Chrome OS? Will I be able to use other browsers? It doesn't look like it. It seems that Chrome OS is going to give "everything" to the user. <br />And correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Chrome OS will run the applications in the cloud and not locally. This is a problem for people that aren't always connected to the web.<br />They are right that most people use their Netbooks for surfing the web, and writing documents. But this doesn't mean that the use it for other things. <br />This move may change things, and make Netbooks cheaper/better, but I'm not sure how much $ Microsoft charges for every OS soled with every Netbook.<br />I guess we'll need to see what is the end result with this. Not everything that is free is the solution, but you never know.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS

[noesnoesnoes]

Yeah, you can't beat the cost, until Google starts charging for its web services..<br /><br />Google CEO Eric Schmidt has compared Google to "the bank", insinuating that we trust the bank. I think after the recent banking collapses, we can say for sure that we do not trust the bank.

[FF2009]

Good bye Windowz <br /> <br />Here comes the 800 pounds Gorilla to knock yer azz out of the markets. <br /> <br />has been to long you been on top.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

ohhh... this is what they mean when they say they wont be using X11.

[Shankland]

Chrome OS does use X Windows technology deeper down the stack, where application developers won't be able to go.

[Random_Walk]

"Chrome OS does use X Windows technology deeper down the stack, where application developers won't be able to go."<br /><br />Depends on what's exposed, and how much of Google Gears is available to the dev I suspect.<br /><br />X11/Xorg rides well above the kernel in a normal distro, so unless Google stuffs it into kernel memory space and goes out of its way to lock it down, it won't be too hard to get at. 'course, you likely won't need to get at X11, but instead be satisfied with getting at the Windows Manager (which rides higher than X11) for any UI tweakage...

[BGXterra]

lame

[spacydog]

It's technically not an OS, just an over-glorified browser running on a dumbed down laptop. You won't be able to run any of your favorite Windows applications. You can, however, use it as a quasi-laptop that's always on so you can browse the web.

[t8]

That is right. No Windows applications, just Web ones.<br />That is why it is a brilliant idea.<br />If you can't do without Office for example, then use the Web version and your done.

[Super2online]

@t8 - You really need to get a clue. Netbooks were designed with mobility as one of it's primary assets. If you have no internet connection you get zilch, nadda, nothing. Windows netbooks still get all Windows apps - you know, that thing called "functionality" that most people who use computers value!

[aMUSICsite]

@Super2online <br /><br />I thought they worked out that most netbooks never leave the house. Quite a few netbooks only have a few hours of battery life anyway not making them great in the big outside. <br /><br />For a cheap computer that sits next to you while watching TV so you can pop it on and have a quick play on the web during adverts or if an interesting website is mentioned on TV, then this is a great idea. If you want more from a computer thin it's not likely to be good for you.<br /><br />Also in some places you can get great free wifi coverage outside your house. Where I live you can get it on the beach, in parks, cafes and pubs. So for me I'm never more than a few hundred meters away from free wifi. <br /><br />If you want Chrome OS to use outside and you can't get on a network it's not the OS that sucks it's you location ;)

[Apacheking]

Kinda sorta OS. This is a dumbed down ubuntu ( Think Ubuntu .02) that runs a browser. I think Google os going the same wrong way of MS giving half thought and half baked product just relying on the Google brand. Time to wake up....and Sundar look like Jerry Lewis...dont they have a better brand manager to take on the Apple cool guy? <br /> <br />Google strategy and brand identity is confusing!! Its like Apple is for the bronzed guys and blonde babes, MS for the Middle incomed blue collars and google is for the homeless.

[t8]

The homeless wouldn't be able to afford one.<br />I think Chrome OS is for Web centric users.

[mike1881]

hop off. mac sucks. it can't do anything special and it cant come up with a commercial that actually tells you something about a mac computer. instead all they do is tell you they're better with nothing to back it up with. a mac cant get viruses u might add. well thats because nobody wants to hack a mac cuz theres nothing to gain. you want to talk about brand names? macs average 2k for a laptop. is that because theyre good? no. they suck. its just a brand name that jacks the price up. id rather have dial up and run windows 95 than have verizon fios and a mac. funny thing is that windows 95 is still compatible with more programs that a current mac. embarrassing.

[Motyoj]

@mike: Obviously you've never used one.

[jr24ds]

@motyoj<br /><br />amen!

[Dave543]

Sounds like a glorified smart phone with a bigger screen and a keyboard. Carrier contract charges still apply, but there's no phone included? No thanks.

[stockyjoe]

exactly. Personally when Im on business Ill just take a real laptop running windows, linux or OSX. I just dont see the reason. Other then the fact that it would make for a cheaper netbook sinces its free. I just dont have a need for a netbook.

[codynews]

Still seems like a stupid thing to me. And if it really is just a browser with a very very tiny OS underneath, what happens if I try to plug in a DVD drive? Download a movie? Plug in my phone to get media? Plug in my scanner? Want to run "real" apps online or off?<br /><br />I don't see ANYONE wanting this over Windows 7 + a browser which can do everything (albiet with a few more seconds startup time) and WAY WAY more.

[codynews]

okay, just watched the video. 90% of the "selling" they did on why Chrome OS centered around the usefulness of the web in general. "Look, you can work on spreadsheets online, and mail online, and the data is in the cloooooouuudddd. ... oooohhhhh"<br /><br />Okay, so again, how is this different from running a real OS with a browser of your choice?<br /><br />Cody

[SpeedPsycho]

I see a huge advantage to this. I dual boot windows and a lite version of slax so I can have instant web access when I want it with slax, or do all my normal stuff with windows.<br /><br />This OS could be used on extremely simple hardware for those who want a lightweight device - you could have twice the battery life and still accomplish a lot of what you'd use a full OS for.<br /><br />They're useful for very different things, apples to oranges. come on.

[Mr. Dee]

I can't believe Google has the audacity to show this off and expect people to waste time on it. Google, sorry, you still have a lot to learn.

[AluminumMonster]

In its current incarnation its completely useless.

[Super2online]

+1 and two and three and four!

[t8]

I think one day most of the comments above will be looked upon as wrong.<br />The Web and a Web OS combined is going to make Paint, Calculator and all those millions of lines of code to run them, look pretty lame.<br /><br />The Web today has better stuff then Windows and the Mac today.<br /><br />Sure there are things that are better on both those OS's but the trend is the Web will get better and richer, while proprietary will not be able to keep pace.<br /><br />The other thing to remember is that it is being aimed at Netbooks. What does the word Netbook mean. Perhaps a laptop that runs things on the Net. Maybe?

[Super2online]

You comments might look correct 3-5 years from now, But for now they look, well you take a look them and tell me.

[t8]

Fair enough comment Super2online.<br />I think you are right, if you include laptops and PCs.<br /><br />But for Netbooks, I think today it is a good OS, or at least very competitive with Windows versions.

[iconoclast04]

"The Web today has better stuff then Windows and the Mac today."<br /><br />Not really. Where's the viable web alternative to things like CAD software, 3D modeling, sophisticated image and video editing, cutting-edge gaming, etc? The web is good for many things, but we're not even close to the point where we can toss out the personal computer for the "cloud". Netbooks are different products, and they're certainly not replacements for PCs...more like complements.

[t8]

@ iconoclast04<br /><br />I did say that proprietary OS's do some things better. I think of Photoshop and Dreamweaver for example. However, most people use the Web, email, office productivity, and might play some games. So for many it will be good enough. For specialised stuff it doesn't meet that criteria yet.

[renGek]

I agree. This is not meant to be a product for right now. Its meant to be a product for 5 years in the future. They are anticipating a massive switch to cloud which is likely but not definitely (still lots of issues to sort out) but the momentum is there. Google is positioning itself for it.<br /><br />Google maps in its initial incarnation was ok but is now quite different than what it has. To look at this low key demo and think this is a press release of a new product is a bit short sighted.<br /><br />I'm skeptical but I'm very curious. Right now I find very little if any use for this OS but I've been around the block enough to know there is probably a lot more around the corner.

[faellen-]

I completely agree with you t8! Everyone seems to be expecting an operating system capable of doing everything. We don't have all the details yet to say what it can and can't do. I'm a little shocked how so many people take something and run with it with little to no understanding of the subject.<br /><br />Reality is that a great deal of people with computers are nearly always connected to the internet. For students in college, there is almost everywhere on campus has one. The rest have connections at home, hot spots, coffee shops, work, and an increasing number of places.<br /><br />Another detail is that most, despite what many here might realize, do not need a traditional computer. How many people actually use the computer beyond browsing the internet, playing games, or using productivity software? Google, as well as others, have excellent office products for the majority.<br /><br />I've been following my own usage of my computer lately and noticed this: aside from a virtual machine of Ubuntu, I pretty much only use Chrome, Outlook, and Office. Instead of using iTunes or Zune player, I tend to bring up Pandora. Most times, to take advantage of collaborative editing with my partners or friends, I use Google Docs.<br /><br />In fact, aside from my virtual machine, I really don't need much. The cloud has advantages: being able to access data from nearly anywhere, data is backed up, no need to install anything, and more. Downsides are obvious: requires an internet connection, applications tend to run a bit slower, limited to web apps. However, we still don't know enough about this to say much. Since they are integrating the browser with the operating system, I could see them storing the applications locally on the computer to use without an internet connection.<br /><br />Actually, I think they already do that to some degree...<br /><br />Yes, there are things I must be able to do that the web probably can't do: a virtual machine is one of them. But really, would you use really use a netbook for any intensive tasks? I'd rather have a much bigger screen and powerful hardware for those tasks. I really can't see an atom processor or its equivalent pulling off such things in any reasonable manner anyway.<br /><br />Everyone has a different situation, so why are people bashing a potentially great result?

[ThisShows10]

I am so excited to see this! Every time google puts something out, I'm almost always pleased with how incredible it is. I especially love Chrome, Gmail and iGoogle....I don't expect them to fail at this.

[Kiljoy616]

There is no way they will fail, though I don't think it will conner the market I think this will take computers to the next level where anyone can afford a computer that for most basic work will run speedy and smooth.<br /><br />I can see something like this for those who have access to the net all the time. I wonder if 3G will be built into the netbooks from start, but an open version so you can pick any cell company you want, not the iphone crap.<br /><br />Like most things with technology, it will be a part of the market that will use this and the rest will have no need, but because it does look easy to learn I can see people using windows using this for more basic day to day work. <br /><br />Now the question is will it all be tied to Google only, and how confidential is your information.

[man_in_la2000]

I really hate the unchangeable background in the netbook version of windows 7, cant wait for the chrome os, especially if it allows advance users to use linux

[DrtyDogg]

The majority of netbooks don't come with that version of Windows.

[frobots]

What we witness in this forum is priceless! It's beautiful to see that the geniuses at Google can foresee the future and that the shortsighted Microsoft fun boys cannot.<br />This product is the OS of the future. It's brilliant! Congrats Google!

[bluemist9999]

As long as you only want to use the system for the 'net, Chrome OS is perfect. It is a very lightweight OS which probably will start very quickly and impose modest hardware requirements.<br /><br />However, if you want to use any applications when you don't have 'net connectivity, such as away from Wi-Fi hot spots/3G connectivity (which costs an arm and a leg and costs by the GB), the Chrome OS won't meet your needs. Also, if you want to use non-web-centric applications, such as watching a DVD, or playing a 3D game, Chrome OS won't work for you.<br /><br />Perhaps, if/when 'net connectivity is high speed and all pervasive, the Chrome OS makes sense. Until then, a pure thin client isn't useful.

[t8]

I agree frobots.<br /><br />Google is in a good place because they are not threatened by the Web, rather they thrive because of it.

[rtripathi]

Very Well said frobots. I use my iPhone to quickly check emails now and some times I wish that there should be a instant start/stop light weight, low cost 13" netbook for typing emails, online shopping, reading news etc. This OS will enable such netbooks and I'll definitely buy it. <br />This is OS of future netbooks, no viruses, no backups, no harddrive crashing worries, no problem if stolen.<br />IBM mainframe/mini computer -&gt; Microasoft PC == previous revolution<br />Microsoft PC -&gt; Cloud based Chrome OS netbook == Next revolution

[baruchzed13]

It's an interesting idea, to design an OS and then build the hardware to suit it. Whether or not this particular OS is great is almost besides the point, it's a paradigm shift in how the OS is conceived of. Most likely others will take this even further, designing very interesting OSs and then building machines to run them.

Are all you guys really so short sighted that you cannot see the potential here?<br /><br />This has built in google gears type support as well as general the ability to cache other web apps for use offline. The system will NOT be a "brick" when not connected to the internet. It also would offer one of the most trouble free and secure OS on the market (everyone loves viruses and reformatting I guess?). The web apps are apples and oranges to the apps we know today. Can you really say you've used a lot of HTML5 based applications, no you havent because the specs are not even finalized for it. Heck google even talks about the potential for photoshop and video editing ability in the future if development progresses like they want it to.<br /><br />Read a little about what this is before jumping to conclusions or at least watch the darn video of the conference earlier today....for hecks sake these comments are just silly. It just annoys me that everyone is so content to use systems that were designed for users needs SOO many years ago and no one seems to understand there's room for improvement and progress.

[t8]

Agreed. People get stuck in their ways.<br />You see the same thing with any generation.<br />Senior citizens for example rarely use ATMs to withdraw their money. They prefer to fill out a withdrawal slip.

[thammr]

So exactly where are you caching when you have no local storage?

[Kiljoy616]

I agree MS fanboy/employee tend to loose sight that the future is not one OS but maybe multiple with different needs met by different companies. I have nothing agains say Windows 7, run good, plays games great, love how it has given me little problems, but of course I built the box and has 8 gigs with dual ATI 5850, quad core I5, just a nice gaming platform. But when I look at Google and think now light and how little power will be needed to run that OS, as well as how little memory it will need to function I see a nice future for this OS also. <br /><br />I for one can't see how people think one OS to rule them all crap. So short minded. Cloud computer is the future maybe not for everything but that makes sense but for a percentage of the work and things people need to accomplish I see this OS having the best user friendly feel to it. Now the question like Netscape vs MS is how long before MS freaks out and starts trying to copy it. :-)

[t8]

Good foresight Kiljoy616.

[stockyjoe]

So the assumption is that all my apps are going to run on the cloud? I am not running photoshop on the cloud, neither am I running my IDE or editor on the cloud. Im all for web apps but people are hyping the cloud the way they hyped java years ago. Yes web apps will get more robust but I dont see web apps completely replacing everything. Hence I want a lightweight laptop preferably running just plain ol linux not soeme browser OS branded as Google.

[CyR00k]

In terms of always on data access I would tend to believe that Google will go the route of Amazon's Kindle or Barnes &#38; Noble's Nook rather than try partnering with a phone company that will try to cripple the functionality of the netbook.

[Kiljoy616]

Oh that would be sweet if they did that.

[Masterface7]

Hi, Kindle and the barns and noble Nook ARE partnered with cell phone companies. Kindle has the dx partnered with sprint and the kindle 2 now partnered with at&#38;t and the nook is partnered with at&#38;t. Internet is not just pulled magically from the air it is given by those guys.

[rdhalste]

I've often wondered why we even need "netbooks". At a couple hundred dollars for a small laptop why not use them instead of a whole new technology and format? If I can't read it on my computer, I'm not going to purchase and download what ever it is. Nor am I going to install a proprietary reader. IOW if my computer can't display the material using a standard word processor. I just can't think of a real reason for the technology.

[johnvmalo]

seems great to me but i still have question, what about my stored music, in my pc or in a external memory how will i manage it, no media player??? ok im always on the net they got that right but i still listen to my music while im on it i dont want to look song by song to listen to them or use an interntet radio station i just want mine, how will i do that???

[Kiljoy616]

Not sure if this is their idea but here how it could play. For example, you go to Itune and you by a song, it downloads but if you loose that song your out of luck, but with cloud computer, every song you buy you can listen to it any time you want, actually its just a link back to a server. <br /><br />No more loosing, no more DRM because you don't actually have a file. So you say wait what if I go to another computer, no problem long on and start listening to the song, actually I could see this leading to high fidelity format because its been stream so room is not an issue, and back at the server all it cares about is having one File that it can stream to whom ever wants to hear it, as long as you have the right to listen to it. Imagine something like AppleTV but your songs are always in the cloud I could also see prices maybe coming down for song's. Its a wild future I am not saying its perfect there are issues with what if the company goes down or out of business, but if your paranoid about that then no problem go with CD OR what ever high quality physical medium you want, you have options and that is what matters.

[DrtyDogg]

@Killjoy616: So instead of "something like AppleTV but your songs are always in the cloud" it is more like the Zune marketplace.