Comments on: Chrome OS for the clueless: What it means for real people

Google's new operating system is certainly something to get excited about, but don't put a new laptop purchase on hold because you want a Chrome Netbook.

[kyleb_h95]

great.... google just killed moblin it has no future now ...........

[pentest]

Chrome OS, like Windows, is for the clueless.

You do realize what you are giving up to use this spyware?

[BrianAbbott67]

Your Internet connection is weak, or it is off line. Your Verizon (or Sprint, or ATT, etc...) WiFi is slow or unavailable. Your netbook with Chrome lacks the ability to work with a new XLSX document with VB Macros. Oh no!!!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I like being in control of my data -- pinning all my support on the cloud just doesn't make me feel comfortable.

I wonder also if Chrome OS is simply hype for a stripped down and Googlized Linux variance?

My prediction is that this will be even less successful than Ubuntu has proved to be as a viable alternative for Windows at home and at the office. Say what you like, the numbers don't lie. MS for better or for worse has over 90% of the desktop market. And in the corporate world, most enterprises operate Windows Domains. The numbers tell the story.

[abcyesn]

I would hope so. Chrome (the browser) has been a bit of a disappointment, as it remains a bug-fest. The sheer engineering power behind Google could be able to brute-force a basic OS; any Android users out there could shed better light on this, though. Chat about Chrome OS at http://www.ChromeOSchat.com

[gbollard]

The most obvious first base for a google OS would be internet cafes which want to have their users surf the net but not make changes to the computer. If it all failed, you could simply reboot the PC from an OS CD and run from CD until the end of the day. After that, a quick reload could be done - with no lost business.

[gidstelios]

Three points about Google OS.

First point: If Google OS comes out free for everyone like Ubuntu or Fedora it may be catchy to the whole IT community otherwise people that do not need a netbook will look away from it.

Second point: Who guarantees me that this brand-new OS will not have "little devils" that report every action I do to Google? Is there anyone reasonable out there to fully trust the Cloud?

Third point: Why there is not a Linux combined with Mozilla Firefox? I prefer that browser anyway.

[gc2010]

So far Google = Happy web experience. In my opinion, Chrome browser has by far the best user interface. I would not be surprised if Chrome OS competes with MAC in interface and usability.
Recently though, YouTube is getting bloated and bloated. This continued advertising push will definitely upset some people.

[fdunn3]

This SO reminds me of the mid-90's when Netscape was the end-all be-all of browsers and then took the leap and said that it too was going to run apps. As a matter of fact WordPerfect (who was the word processor of choice at the time) wrote a version that ran on JAVA and even had a SKU for it.

I don't know how many copies were sold because WP was not cheap either but it just never took off.

It may be that some people don't want to expose everything they have, know, develop, etc exposed to an open cloud and tagged like Microsofts "Smart Tags" when they released Office XP. 99% of those users turned that "feature" off and were accusing MS of invasion of privacy.

Only in ChromeOS EVERYTHING you do will be tagged, indexed, and sold to the highest bidder.

No Thanks, that's what firewalls and sandboxing is for; to prevent that very concept.
Maybe for some but not for me.

[shadowCT89]

You do have to accept the fact that Google might be the only company that could become a small competitor -- maybe a huge one later on. You gotta be blind and stupid not to see the monopoly Microsoft has on the PC/laptop market, and since Apple is never gonna bother to sell their OS on another hardware that is not develop by them, we can only see in one direction ... Microsoft's will. Vista was just the way Microsoft said 'we don't give a d@mn about the customer, they'll just have to accept whatever we do', and if you are happy living like that, then fine; I doubt you really care about your own freedom anyway.

On the other hand Windows 7 has become -- well the RC so far, one of the best Windows OS, and really happy about it, but hey! I wouldn't mind if they actually worked even harder, so a small rival should make things more interesting, the ways most of Linux distributions have tried to approach to the common user .. have failed. So far only 'geeks' (like myself) or IT guys will know how much better OS it is.

Which is why a progress made by someone else that is not Microsoft should be considered 'good', I'm not saying that whatever Microsoft develops instantly sucks, but it should be more criticized. But I hope Google's approach to OS-browser integration is different from the GOS, It just didn't quite convince me. And I'm just really excited about this 8), hope it becomes turns out better than anything we could imagine ~

[xim1970]

@ apple-pi
Not being a legal analyst of any sort, and having believed for a long time that Microsoft was some sort of monopoly, I found your information to be accurate, but confusing. Here is what you said in your post on July 9th:
"The two cases are very different from the anti-trust perspective. What many people do not understand, is that anti-trust laws do not prohibit monopolies or bundling of products. They prohibit using a monopoly in one are to obtain a monopoly (or attempt to obtain a monopoly) in another area, for example, by bundling products.

Microsoft is in trouble because they used their OS monopoly to obtain a monopoly in the browser market by bundling IE with Windows. That was (and is) against the law."

Is M$ still a monopoly considering the range of OSs that can be installed on a PC? Linux for example? What about buying a Mac instead? Mac has more of a monopoly because (AFAIK) you can't install another OS without additional software to emulate a PC operating environment.

Which brings me to my last point. How is a web browser "making money" beyond the OS for M$? Seems it's just another part of the package. It never seemed that anyone was prevented from installing any other web browser (correct me if I'm wrong). All M$ did was make it EXTREMELY difficult to uninstall IE...but you've always had the option to change your default browser. I HATE to stand up for Microsoft, but in this case, I don't see the "monopoly".

Great article on the new Google OS. I look forward to trying it out!

[eqjonez]

I don't think any one company should know that much about me. Its called a PERSONAL computer for a reason. This could pave the way to bad things. We already have cases that have gone to trial over drunken posts on facebook (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6679719)... imagine if all your personal info was stored elsewhere. Its like trusting some blank-faced stranger with all your secrets. Not cool.

[wieser100]

ONE little thing for all this stuff about cloud computing or web based apps. What about the areas in this world that dont have net access or its so slow or unreliable that you could not even think of using it.I think that cloud computing has a vrey long way to go before it will become even moderately used.It will take a long time to overcome the fact that when you use it you are giving control over all your information to someone not even ion the same company as you are and when something goes wrong you cannot even effectively deal with the trouble because its not in your house or company ,just like loosing you power during a storm. all you can do is wait and twiddle your thumbs. chrome is based on that and it wont do good because of that. At least with a proper operating system you can work without the net.