Jump to content
MisterK

Google Chrome OS

Recommended Posts

Its all conjecture at this time and really its moot if they are or they arent. I will reserve my judgement for when the time comes. Simply put, if they can do better than MS, then theyve got my vote. The things is we have been bitten before by MS and whos to say that Google wont do the same??

Even if Google release something that is perceived to be "better" it still won't be enough to create a culture of change that will cost billions of dollars of investment with little to no return. Simply put, it's too late in the game to change every platform, office software and up-skilling staff etc. Till we see a new technology refresh (quantum or something or other) there's no opportunity for them to break in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched SunRise with Pete the Gadget man (who wore a rather pink Hawaii shirt) ... talking about a new OS Google Chrome. He mentioned Linux but didn't know Chrome is going be linux based anyway. He was talking move over Windows and Mac OS X and dismissed Linux ...

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I'm really just pissed that they're not "making" an operating system.

And while they wrote a totally new operating system they could reinvent the wheel too.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm not terribly fussed about who makes my OS or what it does under the hood. What I care about is doing what I want to do as a user. Namely: web stuff, office stuff, easy interoperability with the other systems on my network and games. The first three most systems do just fine, but the last ...

 

If GoogleOS can play Supreme Commander better than Vista, great! Otherwise I'm sticking with the OS that has native DirectX support, thanks!

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if Google are already running some superior custom-made Linux distro internally.

 

They developed Bigtable and GFS from scratch (AFAIK). I'd wager that Linux distribution would be well within their capability.

 

So the question is not "can they do it?" it's "how's it going to be special?"

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to wait and see before I critique it. Not a fan on 'cloud' dependency though.

Offline support through Gears is what I use now anyway, this isn't that far removed. It works alright. Not brilliantly, but alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never had access to all the resources that Google now has.

 

Dude... Microsoft has 20,000 programmers, and makes more money in a month than Google has ever made from sales and raised from stocks... in total.

Edited by HokeyWhiteBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep laughing at people who expect it to be a games OS.

 

Seriously. You think that they're going to bring out some awesome new OS that has awesomely streamlined DirectX compatible APIs that let games run fast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep laughing at people who expect it to be a games OS.

 

Seriously. You think that they're going to bring out some awesome new OS that has awesomely streamlined DirectX compatible APIs that let games run fast?

 

Yeah, that's just crazy talk!

 

I don't doubt that Google will pull something special out of it's hat... they always do... but for the most it will just be Linux Distro #98345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARM support.

 

That's it right there. I'd be fucking surprised, if under the hood (if they aren't already) android and chrome os will share some kind of basis. The fact it will interplay with OS X, Linux and Windows means people it will probably be incredibly intuitive. With ARM core support, it will be able to run on the next generation of tiny/cheap netbooks, which I imagine will be more ARM than Atom.

 

Atom is an expensive platform. If ARM can undercut it, especially if they can capitalise on their PowerVR technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep laughing at people who expect it to be a games OS.

 

Seriously. You think that they're going to bring out some awesome new OS that has awesomely streamlined DirectX compatible APIs that let games run fast?

I know you're not having a dig at me or anything, but I consider myself to be one of a reasonable proportion of the computer-using population that wants to play games (in the "install this application" rather than the "load this Java/Flash thingo in your browser" sense) on their machines. My point is that I seriously doubt they will bother making DirectX work with ChromeOS - which just means that myself and anybody else interested in playing games will not buy/use it.

 

*shrug*

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep laughing at people who expect it to be a games OS.

 

Seriously. You think that they're going to bring out some awesome new OS that has awesomely streamlined DirectX compatible APIs that let games run fast?

I know you're not having a dig at me or anything, but I consider myself to be one of a reasonable proportion of the computer-using population that wants to play games (in the "install this application" rather than the "load this Java/Flash thingo in your browser" sense) on their machines. My point is that I seriously doubt they will bother making DirectX work with ChromeOS - which just means that myself and anybody else interested in playing games will not buy/use it.

 

*shrug*

 

 

Well, you should still be able to run DirectX through WINE.

 

I just wonder how serious Google is. I they really are happy to have the OS on a handful of netbooks then that will be the end of it. If they are serious about taking on Microsoft... who knows where it will end. As I said above though, Google is VERY small fry compared to Microsoft. Having said that though, coinciding with the release of Office 2010 Microsoft will be making new (limited) versions of Word, Excel, Powerpoint and OneNote available for free online... so gthey are obviously feeling some pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is one thing to be said about Google - they're usually decent-good at 'creating' markets and making the most out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is one thing to be said about Google - they're usually decent-good at 'creating' markets and making the most out of them.

Google's business model is based around click through advertising revenue, on which they avoid tax by doing all their billing from tax havens.

They develop stuff purely to attract people for advertisers. They aren't in the business of selling computers, OSes or stand alone software applications.

 

Google complained while developing Chrome, especially for Linux, that the process was complex and there were lots of problems with security. Linux has struggled to fill this space because it is so complex and diverse (with Live CDs, Xfce and Moblin being a backlash against this). Google sees a market for simple, lightweight, secure browsing and where you don't have to pay a lot of money to Microsoft to use the net. Manufacturers who are worried about a Microsoft monopoly think so too and announced their support just before Windows 7 is released and Microsoft think about pulling distribution of cheap Windows XP which currently has most of the market.

 

Google have said that Chrome OS will be:

1. based on the Linux kernel

2. use a non X graphics system (Google bought Skia and released it public domain so that would seem a likely option)

3. will be mostly about running Chrome

4. will be put together in less than a year and released first for netbooks using Intel compatible and ARM chipsets

5. will be open source and available for other platforms where people want a light-weight browsing platform.

 

So Chrome OS will be limited, cobbled together quickly out of existing components and fairly cheap to develop. Not revolutionary just simple and hopefully with enough popularity to provide some competition to Windows 7 on netbooks (and maybe thin clients). It is not intended to be a full desktop system -- if you want that you have a choice of Linux, Mac OS or Windows 7. And you could of course run Chrome OS in a virtual machine on those systems for fast secure browsing.

 

As to new, the Linux kernel is based on 1970s Unix ideas with tinkering and Mac OS is based on 1980s BSD Unix and Mach microkernel. OS development hasn't been that interesting for the last 30 years. It's actually Microsoft, after the failure of Vista and it old Windows NT framework, who have been doing R&D into modern micro-kernels and technologies at the moment.

 

Chrome OS is also pure vapourware at the moment. The arrival of netbooks and the latest developments from ARM have reversed a 30 year trend of computers becoming faster to run becoming larger and more complex applications. It has caught a lot of people by surprise and who knows what things will look like in 12 months time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Chrome OS will be limited, cobbled together quickly out of existing components and fairly cheap to develop. Not revolutionary just simple and hopefully with enough popularity to provide some competition to Windows 7 on netbooks (and maybe thin clients). It is not intended to be a full desktop system -- if you want that you have a choice of Linux, Mac OS or Windows 7. And you could of course run Chrome OS in a virtual machine on those systems for fast secure browsing.

Some of the most ground breaking products have been put together simply and based on existent components that are cheap to develop. Ubuntu, the iPhone, and a whole truckload of other products which I hope others will mention. There is no reason why such a system will not be revolutionary, especially when - as you said - the arrival of netbooks have reversed a 30 year trend of home(!) computers becoming faster, larger, and more complex.

 

If you look outside of the x86 archeticture that dominates home computing, just about every other architecture has focused on becoming leaner and meaner... rather than clunky and frustrating like x86. The rethink of computing that netbooks have spawned is brilliant, and I really hope that the rest of home computing will be analysed using these ideas. It's interesting to think that, for the most part, an iPhone 3GS has the power to replace my main PC.

 

As to new, the Linux kernel is based on 1970s Unix ideas with tinkering and Mac OS is based on 1980s BSD Unix and Mach microkernel. OS development hasn't been that interesting for the last 30 years.

I don't really agree with this in any way shape or form.

 

The engine in my Mazda is based on the 1800s internal combustion engine but they are worlds and worlds apart.

 

Linux 2.6.30 might be based on 1970s Unix, but they also are worlds upon worlds apart.

 

Android - regardless of whether it is revolutionary or not - has yet to spark a revolution, but I see very little reason to discount Chrome OS so quickly. I think to do so is rather foolish.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's discounting ChromeOS, rather than some of the hype surrounding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's discounting ChromeOS, rather than some of the hype surrounding it.

I disagree. Whatever he is that he's discounting, though, I see problems with his POV.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's discounting ChromeOS, rather than some of the hype surrounding it.

I disagree. Whatever he is that he's discounting, though, I see problems with his POV.

 

Rob.

 

 

Haha you always have problems with other people's pov when it's no the same as yours. Anyway lets just wait and see shall we.

 

This is pretty much the path console makers were looking at to cut down on hardware costs.......and probably to cut out piracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha you always have problems with other people's pov when it's no the same as yours.

Doesn't everyone? *raises eyebrow* And that's the fun of the internet, we get to talk with people that hold different points of views. I get to find out why you see things the way you do, and you get to find out why I see things the way I do, we both might even learn something out of it.

 

This is pretty much the path console makers were looking at to cut down on hardware costs.......and probably to cut out piracy.

How so?

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to new, the Linux kernel is based on 1970s Unix ideas with tinkering and Mac OS is based on 1980s BSD Unix and Mach microkernel. OS development hasn't been that interesting for the last 30 years.

The phrase "based on" is thrown about way too liberally in the IT industry.

 

The Linux kernel and GNU tools were developed because Torvalds and Stallman were too cheap to use Minix.

 

The classic Mac OS was created from scratch by Jobs and co, inspired by Xerox's Alto (but only because Xerox got discounts on Apple shares!).

 

It's actually Microsoft, after the failure of Vista and it old Windows NT framework, who have been doing R&D into modern micro-kernels and technologies at the moment.

Nonsense. The architecture of Windows at the core level hasn't changed in 16 years, it's still the Executive-Kernel-HAL trio we started with in 1993.

 

The methods these components use to execute work has advanced in leaps and bounds, but even Windows 7 is still fundamentally the same OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The architecture of Windows at the core level hasn't changed in 16 years, it's still the Executive-Kernel-HAL trio we started with in 1993.

 

The methods these components use to execute work has advanced in leaps and bounds, but even Windows 7 is still fundamentally the same OS.

This is true, I am sad to say.

 

It is also true that every senior OS person at Microsoft has been begging for the chance to scrap the whole stack and start again... truly from scratch... but it ain't ever going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to new, the Linux kernel is based on 1970s Unix ideas with tinkering and Mac OS is based on 1980s BSD Unix and Mach microkernel. OS development hasn't been that interesting for the last 30 years.

The phrase "based on" is thrown about way too liberally in the IT industry.

 

The Linux kernel and GNU tools were developed because Torvalds and Stallman were too cheap to use Minix.

 

The classic Mac OS was created from scratch by Jobs and co, inspired by Xerox's Alto (but only because Xerox got discounts on Apple shares!).

 

It's actually Microsoft, after the failure of Vista and it old Windows NT framework, who have been doing R&D into modern micro-kernels and technologies at the moment.

Nonsense. The architecture of Windows at the core level hasn't changed in 16 years, it's still the Executive-Kernel-HAL trio we started with in 1993.

 

The methods these components use to execute work has advanced in leaps and bounds, but even Windows 7 is still fundamentally the same OS.

 

After Vista Microsoft finally realised the problem. They have had their research groups developing modern ideas. Much of which has been made open source -- have a google for singularity, minwin, midori. Windows7 has new microkernal architecture with a 25MB kernel. Slight different from the 15GB Vista "core system". Sure Window7 still has lot of old NT stuff still in there, but they are moving in the right direction.

 

 

It was not just that they were cheap. As well as the $69 licence fee there were intellectual property issues which stopped tinkering. Minix was developed as a teaching tool and the ownership rested with Tanenbaum's publisher.

 

Stallman was an ideological freak and wanted to develop a completely free GPL system with a microkernel called Hurd (which I believe will be ready just in time to be fusion powered).

 

Linus wanted a PC kernel, that would support a large range of hardward, that he could play with and do what ever he wanted with. He also didn't like the microkernel of Minix (1). He also preferred a more Unix style kernel and device drivers, a point he debated strongly with Tanenbaum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×