Comments on: What Chrome OS has on Windows that Linux doesn't

Because the Web is already a powerful force, Google's OS project has a leg up over would-be Microsoft challengers such as Linux. But it has its own issues too.

[twolf2919]

Apologies to the author, but this is just about the dumbest article I've seen in a long while. First, the author rightly claims that new operating systems, such as Linux, face the problem of not having the breath of application availability that Windows does. He gives, as a prime example, TurboTax. But then he does nothing to explain how ChromeOS will be different in this respect. He just speaks of increased availability of Web-based apps - which, of course, if they're really based on Web standards AND are any good - would be available via any Web browser from any OS, not just ChromeOS. He then "turns it around" (as if he had the audience convinced that ChromeOS will take over the world) and explains some of the problems (nothing new here) associated with web-based applications.

All in all - a total no-op of an article.

[freemarket--2008]

The point is, the desktop OS will become more or less irrelevant to most people, so why should they waste time and resources and money on it.

[jessiethe3rd]

I'll pay for it to run applications outside the web where my information would be collected, cataloged, corollated, and then sold to the highest bidder. The web basically opens up the door to sharing of your private information.

1.) The pictures you store could be used by a marketing company
2.) The documents you store can be scanned and words content could be / would be sold to marketers
3.) If someone happens to hack Google there's not an independent computer or computers to go after where you control your security - it's basically one source to get to all the information necessary - this is a security nightmare.
4.) Paying for an OS means you are paying for an OS not thinking you are getting something "free" while you are being tracked, marketed to, and sold off to the highest bidder.

[Azger]

It's not that people are dissatisfied with Windows, it's just that Windows upgrades [primarily updates to the GUI rather than the core] are very expensive and the model proposed by Google scales up in a cost effective manner.

Look at what the major corporations are doing with their own internal business tools and processes. It's all going to Web-based applications on virtual machines running in huge datacenters that serve increasingly thinner client devices.

Pretty soon they are using only a fraction of the code in that cumbersome desktop/laptop OS.

Isn't this what Windows 2008 Core is all about?

[dstrauss]

This is definitely Yogi's "deja vu all over again." If we have learned anything in the last 25 years, the thin client model is a bust, because in the end the user always comes back to the local application/local data model. When it comes to real application usage, whether personal or business, users demand access and performance at their workstation. Network based software, except in the large IT supported environments, is a dog. Just ask anyone running a 20 person or less office network. Cloud computing may be great for sharing pictures, surfing, email, and watching Youtube, but you will never be able to replace the desktop application performance and the fear of total dependence on the Cloud being accessible and responsive.

[vikinzer]

I hate to be a nay sayer, but I just don't see it. Part of why I don't see it is I already use Linux, and to be blunt I can't imagine giving up my desktop programs. Now here's the thing. I didn't say can't imagine giving up my desktop programs for these nifty wonderful out of this world web programs. Because I'll still have them. The thing that I've been kind of curious about with this announcement is that people running Windows and Linux and Mac will still have access to all these technologies. Google announced them all as products that can be deployed on other platforms before they even announced this OS, and they have already said their OS is going to be open source very soon. Well if they open source it and it's built on the Linux kernel then whatever interface it has will be deployed on other Linux distros the same way there is a project to bring Android apps to Ubuntu.

I'm excited that Google is developing this technology, and I'm excited they are making it open source so everyone can utilize it. I am just kind of tired of the same old "What advantage does it have over the other players?" reporting. The same way Google released the Chrome browser but still shovels money into Firefox, I don't think this is an us vs. them. I think this is an overall push to get the other players to improve their web experience. Thereby improving the platform Google utilizes for profit. And boy did Chrome coming out light a fire under Mozilla to improve Firefox performance. Which improves the web, which makes the Google App experience better. Hmmmmm, kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

[retnep]

My wife is a senior accountant and she's fairly computer literate. I have been trying for a few years to get her to use Open Office. She's tried it and hates it (she hated Microsoft Office 07 too but she eventually figured out where everything is). Her biggest complaint, it's not the 'real' Office. In order to get people to switch OS, you first have to understand their complaints with the first one. The biggest complaints that I hear about Vista isn't how much memory it takes up, the biggest complaints are that it isn't XP. It's too different. People don't want to learn something new, they want to be able to pick up their PC and not think about it. Windows 7 will be a success because people have had a chance to play with Vista.

All that goes to say, I don't see an opening for Google. Who uses Chrome? Besides me, my friends who aren't in tech have an idea what Chrome is. My sister uses a PC everyday and the only other browser she will use is Firefox (same with all my friends). As much as people use Google, they don't need Google.

[Shankland]

The interesting question for me is how long Google is willing to sustain its effort. I remember when the WIMP interface arrived on the first Mac a generation or so ago. Before then, virtually nobody knew about mice and windows, but now those are quite ordinary of course. The bigger the paradigm shift, the harder it is to get people to learn the latest thing.

But remember this: the Web is real. There are popular apps that are almost completely on the Web these days, such as Facebook, and plenty of people live their lives immersed in the Web. It's a more gradual transition from native apps to Web apps, because the latter overlay on regular operating systems. I have no doubt Web apps will succeed in a lot of areas; I'm less sure about an OS that can't use anything else.

[fn_tool]

OK, so I just read the article 3 times because I'm trying to figure out what the Google OS that Linux (in my case Ubuntu) doesn't. I guess you mean the Chrome browser (which Im using right now) instead of FireFox, which I also use daily or IE - again used daily. I use Windows XP & 7, Ubuntu & OSX daily depending on task. Um, what's the big deal. You even wrote in this article that a browser is a browser, right?

I'll quote you: "Programmers writing Web applications can reach anyone using Windows--and Mac OS X, Linux, and even a lot of advanced mobile phones, for that matter."

I simply won't be wasting my time reading his articles with misleading headlines. The point I take away from this is that Shankland is a narrow minded, opinionated Google fanboy. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.

I feel that if Google wants to enter the OS Market, more power to them. Increased competition always leads to higher quality products and lower prices.

[stumiller]

The author of this article needs to do his/her homework. This Google OS is not anything compelling as a challenge to Windows, as many commenter's say it's just Linux+Chrome. Why do you need to attract developers for that? There are already many developers for Linux, and many for Web applications. Google OS is nothing more.

Call it a linux distro with a pre-bundled browser, and then call the EU for an anti-trust investigation since they wouldn't let MSFT do that!

Though I'm a fan of many things Google, the OS new it a bit of a yawner.

[freemarket--2008]

Same lame arguments. It's not just another Linux, it's a Linux stripped of almost everything it doesn't need for web use and optimized to support Chrome, Gears etc. With this and support for Native Client, O3D etc, it will make web apps much more powerful.

[msjonker]

Juding by all these articles about Chrome OS, you'd think the only thing people ever use their computers for was to run Microsoft Office.

I edit video, edit images, listen to MP3s... the list goes on and on. Try to do that over the web anytime soon.

If Chrome OS's big advantage is web, guess what, Windows does that too. So with Chrome, like every other OS (OSX, Linux, etc.) you get a subset of what Windows can do.

Chrome OS may have its niche, but it shouldn't even be compared to Windows at this stage in the game. What a bunch of hype...

Innovation is great, and I'm glad Google is doing this, because who knows where it might go, but even think this thing could knock off Windows anytime soon is absolutely ridiculous.

[cggkevin]

Maybe GoogleOS + Chrome can be the next "one laptop per Child" project. As there are already low end netbooks with Linux and Firefox, this seems like a non-event to me.

[jessiethe3rd]

Hm that's ideal... they could do that and gather the information for third world countries. What a great win for Google and it's marketing partners.

[Jim Hubbard]

So the idea behind the Google OS is that you don;t need an OS - you just need a browser?

You know, every large company makes a BIG mistake now and then (New Coke, Windows Me, Vista, Tropicana's failed re-branding, etc.), so I guess Googles is entitled to it's time in the mud too.

Like grandma always said, "Just clean up that mess when your done!"

[freemarket--2008]

How can this be a BIG mistake? Search and advertising are their bread and butter. This is just one more avenue to reach their products. If nothing else, it will put pressure on other OSes to improve web app support and reduce boot times.

[Magallanes]

let's say, Chrome OS is a reality and you can play plenty of application and games under it, so in this hypothetical case, let's play some game, for example Plants & Zombies.

The game weight around 200 megabytes and if you beat the game then you can play in almost any part of the game. So even allowing and adding some "loading level stuff", even for a fast connection to load can take a couple of minute plus the delay for every level loaded. Instead, currently the game took about 5 seconds to load, then less a second x level.

Chrome OS can allow to cache the entire application, of course full caching the file is the same as playing locally.

Chrome OS apparently is (and will) not be to compete against Windows or Linux, simply is just another RIA but more unified.

[freemarket--2008]

I don't really get what you're saying here. Chrome OS is a web-based OS. There are already plenty of web-based games and apps. They will be able to run as well or more likely better on Chrome OS.

If a multi-hour game uses 200 MB of data, you don't need more than a few MB cached at any one time. Games progress from one point to another so you load what you need now and what you may need next, not everything. Look at games like WoW, you can walk around for hours without a load screen. Yes I know that WoW data is local, but it's the same principal on a smaller scale.

[mt71449]

Fact is, this is what linux does for us, gives us choices, lowers the entry costs for anyone with a new idea or innovative approach. Don't like Chrome OS or the idea of Chrome OS? Use Ubuntu/Ubuntu netbook remix. Or use Sugar. Or use.... you get the picture. I dig Firefox > Chrome. But I run both. I run Windows and Ubuntu, why not Chrome OS too? Get out there and have some fun. Who knows, maybe Facebook will release an OS someday, bet that their OS would be the best.... lol

[Christian3D]

You are forgetting probably the most used technology for web apps. Flex, and the Flash platform.

Since Flash runs the same on all OS's and within all browsers, web applications can be built without many of the the limitations that you mention.

[quote]First, Web applications can't tap into hardware resources the way a native operating system can for reasons of security and technological limitations.[/quote]

This is not entirely true. Adobe's AIR offers the hybrid approach to web applications. AIR installs like a regular desktop based application and at the same time it uses all the web technologies to create the app. This offers the best of both worlds, online and offline interactivity, and the ability to use the system resources and drivers.

Back to web based applications for a second, one major advantage of web based applications is portability. If you are anything like me your applications look very different from the out of box install, custom short cuts, custom workspace layouts, custom plugins, etc. With desktop applications I can only run my applications on machines that are licensed to run it (Yet another limitation to the licensed user, to avoid theft for the software manufacture), and I have to custom configure each application independently. This is huge limitation that many people probably don't even realize. Where as a web based application would allow me to run my applications from any computer anywhere (as long as it has an Internet connection), with all my settings already in place. If I use a combination of being able to install an AIR application than I have all the advantages of my web application as well as the resources of the computer, i.e. additional RAM, temporary hard drive storage, video and audio hardware, web cams (as you mentioned).

One other note, you mention financial software like Quicken, Quickbooks, etc. as being desktop only applications. Not true, go to Intuit.com, they are currently offering both desktop and web based versions of their applications. I think they are even offering the web based versions for free.

My prediction, soon enough it wont matter what OS you are using. Google offering a free OS, well free is always better than two or three hundred dollars.

[halsue2]

A lightweight os linux based core with a browser based OS interface inside a basic netbook style client makes sense to me. A LOT of people have no need for a powerful computer to do image manipulation and such. In terms of a second computer this is even more the case. I am sure Google intends for docs, g-mail etc to be able to run independently of the web so as not to render the machine useless when not connected. I am sure these machines will sell like hot cakes. Specially if the price is right. But to suggest that it will displace Windows or OSX is just silly

[twitter_1963]

Security holes exist in Adobe, Safari, Iphone... Windows is attacked because it's on 90% of the worlds desktops. Just wait till Google is asked to be backwards compatible with ALL web apps, and others, even 20 years old. Something Windows supports today!

[freemarket--2008]

Umm, 20 year old web apps? Are they HTML 5 compliant? ;-)

[aantn]

Did anyone here actually read the press release?

"The software architecture is simple ? Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."

Please, stop with titles like "What Chrome OS has on Windows that Linux doesn't." Chrome OS is Linux.

[freemarket--2008]

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that it's not a full-blown Linux distro, but a highly optimized and stripped down OS. Google is stressing the browser and the web, not the desktop interface--which btw is not Linux (or Gnome/KDE).

[bassman12345]

I read that differently. Although there would be an underlying Linux kernel, that doesn't mean you could readily access Linux; hence my concern. Chrome OS might eliminate the ability to shell-out to sh/tsh, etc. It would be easy to patch the kernel so only "Chrome-approved software" could run.

IF Chrome OS is just another flavor of Linux - I like it!

IF Chrome OS is nothing but a "dumb terminal" - forget it!

[codevalley]

I feel this is not going to work.
6 reasons why Chrome OS does not impress me! -> http://www.thecodevalley.com/2009/07/6-reasons-why-chrome-os-does-not.html

[krenick]

My IPhone OS is built to be very web oriented, extremely easy to use, supports touch screens, it's got amazing features, built on top of three powerful yet fast languages (C, ObjC, C++) from which one is extremely dynamic, and shares the Unix architecture. I guess I don't need another operating system.

[codynews]

No one seems to answer this simple question:

Why run ChromeOS on a notebook rather than Windows 7 (along with the chrome browser, if that's your cup of tea).

Windows 7 is pretty cheap to OEMs for a netbook so for a few more bucks you get a way more feature rich OS... and you can still use whatever browser you want (including Chrome) for your "webapps"

[aantn]

"Why run ChromeOS on a notebook rather than Windows 7 (along with the chrome browser, if that's your cup of tea)."
How about a vulnerability to viruses plus major speed boosts?

Besides, some people don't like the idea of Microsoft restricting their computer to 1 gb of ram.

[jessiethe3rd]

Go run Vista and tell me about Viruses... seriously - not an issue. Go run Windows 7 and tell me about Viruses...
Netbooks are ideal at 1GB or RAM otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be a Netbook. Also, you can run Windows 7 full blown on a Netbook - it's already out there and people are already running it 1GB and memory at all. Your argument makes 0 sense.

[mt71449]

as another article says, "Why not?"

Windows has some abstraction and computing paradigms that aren't so great for computing anymore (if they ever were), and Microsoft won't grow up and ditch them. Windows is krufty, the crust is building up. Something just smells like its dead.

The fact is XP has so far been the flag of what Windows has to offer. That is the real reason why people resisted Vista. XP is a computing standard and simultaneously the epitaph of Windows innovation. Windows is what it is, good enough computing, and XP got Windows there.

Linux gives us so many choices. We haven't even fully begun to exercise the capabilities and choices that Linux gives us. And Google can take us another step towards a truly community driven model of computing. We can opt to use or not use Google's software, to keep what we like, ditch what we hate and explore alternatives. That is good enough rationale for me.

[freemarket--2008]

I agree. Perhaps Chrome OS will be the next 'good enough' OS for most people.

[jessiethe3rd]

I don't know what world you are living in (maybe a bubble of open source?) but Windows 7 has recieved fantastic reviews... both light weight, flexible, and accomidating. This whole Good enough mantra is what leads Linux folks to copy the Windows interface and concept so unabashed.

[mt71449]

Even handcuffs can be light weight, flexible and accommodating, as long as they do their job of constraining you, denying you freedom of motion. So it is that Windows is not community driven from the inside outward; it is vendor locked from the outside inward. We get whatever computing paradigms Microsoft tells us we are going to get... *for* an expensive penalty ! You and I speak of "the Windows interface and concept", which is the set of industry derived but *vendor claimed* abstraction and computing paradigms that each Windows user must accept *without choice*, just to achieve a necessary basic computing experience, regardless of the user's needs or hardware specifications.

But what I am saying is that Windows and "its interface and concept", taken together conceptually, are like a rack bought "one size fits all " kind of business/leisure suit with a 1990s design. I say that Windows XP is "a computing standard and the epitaph of Windows innovation"; the proof is in the fact that we do not need Windows 7, though it is widely hailed, nor do we need Windows Vista. After a kazillion updates, XP can still give most people the basic computing experience that they will still need. In other words, XP is Good enough computing, and Windows 7 is Good enough computing With Flair.

Linux based computing systems are providing individuals and vendors with the ability to either provide Good enough computing AND/OR tailored computing experiences, with the added benefit of being able to develop these experiences as part of a community. And so the clear Linux trend is away from "the Windows interface and concept", and instead is toward mobile computing, web based experiences and real conformance to a users needs; think moblin, android, ubuntu, ubuntu netbook remix, sugar, xandros, webOS from Palm, and the future Chrome OS. Heck, Linux is even in my 40 inch flat screen HDTV right now! The Linux related technologies trend is not just an open-source dream, it is here now providing growing value to ever expanding users all of the time, right? If you don't think so, then its your opinion versus Google's.