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.

[eltoro2827]

Not so fast. Google producing an os , oh god , Eric will do anything for payback. Google must die.

[YankeePoodle]

Declaring an Operating System "a force to reckon with" with out even test-driving alpha version is taking "fan-boyism" to new heights. I had to comment this because, there are no words like "has potential" "can" "may" or at least "likely", the statement is too assertive to be objective.

[WillyWiggler]

+1. I get the impression that the author has posters of Sergey & Larry in his bedroom with hearts drawn around their faces. Given his public writings, I'm uncomfortable thinking about what is in his private diary.

[rakker91]

Huh--all the talk about barriers to rich functionality and silverlight wasn't even mentioned. It can already take advantage of hardware acceleration on both windows AND mac os X.

[Save_Me_from_my_Govt]

SHOW ME THE DRIVERS!.....

When Chrome has drivers for all of the printers, scanners, cameras, sound-cards, video cards, etc., etc., then I'll have a look at it. We already have problems with vendors telling us that when Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, "Sorry, we aren't going to make drivers for that product any more..." Until, and unless, Google plans to do something about that situation, I'm not interested.

Secondly, Microsoft already has a problem with security vulnerabilities, and monthly security patches... I wonder how long it will take the bad-guys to see this as nothing more than a new sandbox to play in?

[SteveMcQwark]

Linux has that almost completely covered. Very rarely is there a driver that doesn't exist for Linux (and normally for legal reasons ) and modern Linux distros automatically install those drivers. Win7 also has some pretty decent driver support, though the install part could use some work. It doesn't identify quite everything...

[kaiman75]

"Third, there's that pesky issue of Internet connectivity. Web apps without the Internet are as useful as a sewing machine without thread."

It's not only a matter of "Internet connectivity", but bandwidth, data size, and network complexity that Google will have to contend width in order to develop applications that businesses can use. As an IT professional for a Engineering firm, I'd like to see Google, attempt to develop sophisticated web based CAD software (some of the most graphic/CPU intensive software on the market that is prone to errors even on high-end Windows PCs). Good luck!

Also, you forgot to mention the potential security implications that a web-based OS has. Using online applications and storing data on the web or remote servers, who knows where, whether personal or business related, is just plain silly in my opinion. They may be able to sell this to Home/Small Office users, but any larger Businesses that are concerned about their data and intellectual property, backups, etc. will probably frown at the notion.

Also, if any of the hundreds of banking and now social networking phishing scams and viruses that have arisen are any indication, then it won't take hackers long to compromise Google's Chrome just like they've learned to do on Windows Internet Explorer. The difference being, that, since it is so much based on the web, will probably cripple users machines even quicker, (despite the fact that Google's OS is Linux based).

As much as I'd like to see Microsoft's monopoly on Operating Systems broken, I wouldn't count on Google being the one to do it.

[kyle2dotcom]

Question. If Web apps cannot tap into hardware then how does google to video chat with gmail?

[freeimprov]

Something people keep failing to mention here... MALWARE. I've been referring to Outlook and IE as "Microsoft Virus Studio" for years now. The deeply flawed MS security model leaves thousands of desktops crippled every day. It's a much more straightforward exercise to keep Chrome browser + Linux kernel secure, so we won't be plagued by viruses and worms, and won't throw half our cpu at running clumsy virus detection software that doesn't even work half the time. This is why Macs aren't plagued with viruses, too - the OS is inherently far more secure, and it requires far more sophistication to write something dangerous.

Hello! Do you still use TurboTax not turbotaxontheweb? Please don't tell me people still buy TurboTax CDs from Costco every year!

[mpitogo]

"Canonical's Ubuntu version of Linux has a lot of buzz as a desktop operating system, but when April 15 comes around, TurboTax doesn't run on it. Multiply that by all software the world needs and the Windows incumbent advantage becomes clearer."

Hmmm, I filed my '08 taxes online via turbotax....

[WillyWiggler]

This article is terrible. The author sounds like a google sycophant.

The web has been around for just about as long as linux. The author tries to make some claim that the difference between ChromeOS and other linux distros is that ChromeOS has the web as the app platform??? That really is BS.

The reality is that the only advantage ChromeOS has over other linux distros is that it will be backed by the Google resources. End of story.

[Mikejh99]

Perhaps someone should just let the "author" know that you can run a browser and get on the web with Linux. I've reread this article three times and it still doesn't make any sense to me how having a browser on a stripped down version of Linux is going to be better than having a browser ona full version of Linux. Does anyone remember the JavaStation? Wasn't that supposed to kill off windows by running everything over the network?

I swear CNET gets worse every day. Sad.

[queticomn]

g$$gle o/s == Linux. its nothing new.

[SteveMcQwark]

Read ;-)

[sting7k]

Wow cnet we just found about this 2 days ago and already it's the end of Windows? Honestly...Chrome OS has nothing on Windows. It was just announced 2 days ago! Anyone can talk and talk and say this and that or that it's going to do this and be that. But until it hits the internet or how ever Google will distribute it then it literally has NOTHING on Windows, OS X, or even regular ol' Linux.

[queticomn]

I have notice the author also seems to be bias in favor of g$$gle when reporting on g$$gle developments. Perhaps its excitement i don't know. Though this trend seems so cut across the board at cnet. I remember the cool days when cnet was just on tv an reported on cool technology and was not so judgmental, what hapend?

[jessiethe3rd]

News does not exist anymore my friend - it's only opinion. If people just produced news it wouldn't sell advertising - it wouldn't draw in people trying to listen in. Headlines sale advertising and that is how information flows. Thank you friends at Fox News for starting it up - it's now at every avenue... the news by opinion is now your daily dose of reality.

News has been converted to Bloggers.

[queticomn]

Fox news? the biggest laughing stock of a news agency out there? If that is your news source, it shows in your comment.

[jessiethe3rd]

Did you actually read my comment? I said that Fox News popularized the Opinion News state that we are in. The only time I even watch anything that comes out of News Corporation is when I watch NFL football and I usually am switching the channel at half time.

Fox News is to News as CNET is to news... articles are written as opinions not as actual news.

[cvaldes1831]

The longer I use my iPod touch, the more I understand that a web browser isn't always the ideal platform for accessing data on the Internet.

I access the following without firing up a web browser: e-mail, visual voicemail, video (YouTube and other streaming services), audio (Internet radio and other streaming services, including my own music library), social networks, maps, news, sports scores (and streaming video), traffic reports, transit schedules, weather, stocks, TV & movie schedules, restaurant reservations, online shopping (music, apps, etc.). In most of these cases, I prefer NOT using a browser to access this information.

In addition to the pocketability of the small handheld devices is the ability to operate them in one hand. I used to be really keen on tablet computing (e.g., Apple Newton), but these days, I'm not sure. I like being able to stick my iPod touch in my jeans and use it with one hand.

It will be interesting to see what Google comes up with and where it fits in the market. The performance/functionality gap between smartphones and full notebook computers (where netbooks reside) shrinks every single day.

In terms of portability, the difference between a 10"/3 lbs. netbook is relatively small compared to a 13"/5 lbs. notebook. By contrast, my iPod touch weighs four ounces. *That* makes a difference.

[SteveMcQwark]

Equivalent apps could be written for the browser. And you wouldn't need to install them on your device to use them. And no one would be able to restrict content the way Apple does. They came up with a decent model, but in the end, why search out and install apps to access web content if you can just go to a web page and get the same experience?

[BulletProofChen]

I'm so confused by this article. It seems to imply that only ChromeOS can run web apps. But I seem to be successfully running all of the webapps this article mentions on all my computers at work, at home, and even on my cellphone, none of which are running ChromeOS. Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that ChromeOS offers NOTHING except for a (potentially) nicer web experience, which we will all be able to get just by upgrading our browsers over time???

[jessiethe3rd]

It's about end to end control of the experience by Google to gather more information for it and its marketing partners. Google sees the potential challenges it faces when it has to deal with an Operating System on the desktop that's of its control. With popularity of Firefox and addins like Adblocker and even Microsoft's IE8 with InPrivacy filtering people are slowly having options on what they choose and dont choose to share.

Google making a Web OS (this is no OS) is to get more information about you without the restrictions of another vendor (ie Windows, Mac OS, or another Linux Distribution)

[fifth_interval]

Much to do about another consumer toy. Yes it will satisfy the basic need of connecting to the web ... IF you can get connected where you happen to be at the time. But it will have limited business use or value unless you are driven entirely by web based apps ( and I'm not sure who in the business world follows that model). As far as promoting the cause on Linux ... good luck - the consumer won't care any more than they care about the OS of their current smart phone, the apps won't care because they'll be running in a data center on the web somewhere ... in the end - the only people who might care are Google and whoever is building the net books - and you can expect this to move to embedded Linux really fast .... just like other toys. I mean - was it cool that some wireless routers ran Linux and you could hack em? sure! But how many consumers really knew or gave a damn?

The best thing to be said about this is that it might get people on the web that currently aren't at a lower dollar and technology proficiency cost. Which is what this is all about - providing more/easier/less costly access to the web. The OS issue - moot.

[impete]

Folks unless I'm missing something it's stoll a browser on Linux. The only advantage is it will be google leveraging its name to solicit partners and furthering its tool sets. This will be good things for Linux as well since it will be able to leverage both as well

[jdekeij]

It is a great idea, however they make Android OS obsolete by this move. Actually Chrome OS is equal to the WebOS used on the Palm pre gsm phone. So why not put Chrome OS on the phone as well? Than development of web apps get even more users. Google should have skipped Android i.m.h.o

Jasper

Glad to see the industry is still encouraging and consuming development effort on a variety of ways to address a range of needs and preferences. Long live competition. Personally, I am happy to have an operating system "local" [on MacBook Pro] for the bulk of what I do locally. After starting with DOS, then moving to Mac for 10 years, to Windows, and now to Mac OS + Parallels + Windows I can see some benefits in variety. And, I'm happy to for web-based collaborative apps like those from 37Signals, or GoToMeeting, and photo sharing options. iWork 09 has some very attractive Apple-like enhancements. But I couldn't use it if it lacked strong compatibility with Office.
As the French say, in a different context, vive la difference!