Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome OS Benchmarked Against Moblin, Ubuntu Netbook, More

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 3 years ago | from the feels-a-little-like-apples-to-oranges dept.

Google 193

An anonymous reader writes "Using the latest build of Google's Chromium OS source code, Phoronix built it out to run on a Samsung netbook and ran sixteen benchmarks, putting it up against Moblin 2.1, Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10, openSUSE 11.2, and Fedora 12. They ran some of their usual desktop benchmarks (encoding, video, etc..), but more interestingly they ran a number of battery, CPU usage, and memory consumption tests under different settings that show some of the advantages and disadvantages for each of the Linux distributions, and spotted a few bugs along the way."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shocking. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205052)

Similar linux kernels perform mostly similarly on identical hardware, except for the pre-production one that they probably haven't bothered to polish for any particular real-world hardware yet.

Re:Shocking. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205158)

Notice they didn't bother comparing any of them to either Windows 7 or Mac OS X. They wouldn't want open source to look bad, would they? LOL.

Re:Shocking. (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205368)

Does the Phonorix test suite even run on Windows yet? I don't think that's released yet.

Phonoroix does benchmark against the Mac all the time.

Re:Shocking. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205646)

kinda of hard to do a apples to apples test when your using programs that wont run on the other os. I dont think there are many benchmark programs that run on both linux and windows so obviously your just a retarded windows fanboi

Re:Shocking. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205794)

Given that I promote Linux all day long, I don't see how I'm a Windows fanboi.

The Phoronix Test Suite checks disk IO, cpu utilization, battery usage, gzip, LZMA, mplayer, ffmpeg, and some FPS games.

All those things can be tested on Windows.

You're dealing with different video drivers on Windows, as well as wondering if you can 100% trust disk IO, CPU, battery usage, numbers as being comparable given that you'll be getting those numbers from another source.

However, the test suite does use programs that will run on Windows.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I wasted the 30 seconds to respond to an AC Troll, but I just want people to realize that Phoronix isn't ducking Windows, and I'm guessing we'll see a Windows test suite in time.

Re:Shocking. (5, Informative)

RanCossack (1138431) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205824)

Notice they didn't bother comparing any of them to either Windows 7 or Mac OS X. They wouldn't want open source to look bad, would they? LOL.

I know, right? Moblin's boot time can't hold a candle to Windows 7's, but the real powerhouse is Vista -- a boot time score higher than Moblin, Ubuntu, Suse, and Fedora's all *combined*... and then *squared*.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to dominate a game of golf.

Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205250)

Face it, "Chrome OS" isn't an operating system in any way. It's a web browser running on a Linux distribution. Nothing more, nothing less.

A more appropriate name for it is "Chrome Fullscreen".

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (2, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205404)

Chrome FS?

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (4, Funny)

Vendetta (85883) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205438)

Chrome BS.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (1)

kFiddle (1383267) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205454)

As I understand it, Chrome OS packages a full linux kernel and device drivers to be able to interact with your hardware. It would probably be more accurate to call it a new linux distribution. But, why argue about terminology when "linux" itself isn't even an operating system.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (1, Insightful)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205496)

Linux is an operating system. Chrome is a customized linux distrbution and therefore an operating system. Even if you don't like it.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (4, Funny)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205560)

Funny, I thought Linux was a Kernel.

Since we're being pedantic and all.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205838)

Let's pretend he said GNU/Linux and move on.

Sure is a lotta douchebags in this thread!

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30206162)

This is /.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30206490)

Only according to Richard Stallman, who took it upon himself to rename the Linux operating system—which was forked from his own GNU project, which pissed him off a bit—to "GNU/Linux" and claim that "Linux" was the name of the kernel. Linux not being his project, he has about as much authority to dictate these names as I do to change the name of Coca-Cola.

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206458)

It's Google's rebranding of Linux. Perhaps in a few years Linus will be demanding that it be called "Linux/Chrome".

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (2, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206684)

Yes, you're probably right. He has, after all, demanded that Linux/Slackware rename itself, as well as Linux/Debian, and Linux/Suse and ...

Oh wait, that hasn't really happened, has it?

Re:Let's stop calling it "Chrome OS". (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206698)

Face it, "Chrome OS" isn't an operating system in any way. It's a web browser running on a Linux distribution.

Chrome OS is an operating system. Specifically, it is specialized a Linux distribution where the in place of a traditional desktop environment, a variation of the Chrome browser is sued. Since a specialized Linux distribution is an operating system, so is Chrome OS.

It may not do what you want out an operating system to do, and that may make it a bad operating system for your use. That doesn't make it not an operating system, however.

Re:Shocking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205252)

But that leaves chromeOS as a system that perform like other distros while having less functionality. It sure may be easier to use - less functionality means less things that can break or confuse users, but frustrating when its limits are reached. Good for locked down corporate terminals, but not very exciting for me.

MS carefully avoids to use the king argument for windows> we got the games. It is another factor that doesnt help Chrome. Linux manages to have a handful of good games and can run some win ones.

Re:Shocking. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205584)

Is not meant to be a full computer replacement, just a window to the web, no more, no less. Even could forget that is Linux what it runs. And about performing like the other distros, i suppose that further in the development will be tuned, and trimmed, and adjusted to the very specific hardware that is meant to run on, and that could change how it performs (and even what it does, is nice on paper but reality could change that idea)

Dualboot. (2, Insightful)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206032)

I think ChromeOS will be very useful as a second boot choice, when you are in a hurry (airport, hotspot, whatever) and need some info on the internet quick. Just turn on your netbook and get your info in a few seconds. To do the real job you have the OS of your choice as the primary boot (Linux or Windows)

I know, I know, you can always use hibernation and be also ready in a few more seconds, but note every note(net)book likes the hibernation.

Just my 2 pesos.

Re:Shocking. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206754)

But, don't forget - it's open source. I browsed through the file system. It's Linux. No matter what Google finally releases as the "official" ChromeOS release, all of us abnormal geeky types can go in and tweak to our heart's content. Look for unofficial ChromeOS releases soon after - or maybe even BEFORE - Google releases version 1.0

Isn't that kinda similar to the war Slackware got it's start? Some dude wanted Linux to do something that the official releases weren't doing?

Re:Shocking. (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205354)

Each distro includes distro-specific kernel patches. They configure the kernel differently. They ship different releases of the kernel. And they compile with slightly different versions of the toolchain.

So you will see benchmark differences with the "same" kernel on different distros.

I'm shocked to read the Chromium is eschewing Ext4. What FS are they using, and it it because it is optimized for SSDs?

Re:Shocking. (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205420)

Answering my own question here, but Chrome is using Ext3, which is not optimized for SSDs particularly. In fact, Ext4 has been getting some SSD patches.

I really don't understand this move since Chrome is supposed to be as fast as possible. I also have to stop saying Chromium, because that is just the browser. The whole OS project is just called Chrome.

Re:Shocking. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205506)

The justification may very well be that, as this is a project largley in its infancy, they're sticking to a more conservative configuration at the bottom end. You don't expect any development project at this stage to be looking at optimization anyways. Stability is more important, and once you've got that, then you start plugging in more high performance functionality.

Re:Shocking. (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205470)

Given the number of times that Ext4 is mentioned in Chrome's publicly released design docs, I'd be inclined to suspect that they just haven't bothered to configure it with Ext4 yet, at least not in the publicly released build.

Either that, or the left hand and the right hand need to have a little sit down and chat in the immediate future...

Re:Shocking. (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206500)

Speaking of which, I wonder why they went with the linux kernel and didn't try doing something new? I mean, you'd think with the ridiculous resources they have and all the top-flight programmers they hire, they could have come up with something new and improved.

How? (4, Interesting)

Spety (1269166) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205096)

Are CPU and memory usage statistics even available in the current build of Chrome OS? I don't remember seeing them when I ran the version that was posted as a VMWare image.

Re:How? (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205378)

I thought you couldn't even install apps. Here they're installing the test suite, performing LZMA compressions, etc. Perhaps Chromium OS does more than we were led to believe it can do.

Re:How? (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205924)

TFA mentions that they mounted the ChromeOS image on another system, and made some adjustments. At least at this stage, it is pretty much stock Ubuntu with a chromey face on top, so anybody who has the image mounted rw on another system should be able to bodge on anything Ubuntu can do with fair ease.

Re:How? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206152)

I imagine the simplist solution would be an Ubuntu Live CD, and then chroot into the Chrome OS. You now have terminal access.

Re:How? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205412)

Even if it was, Chrome isn't in the same game that Fedora, Ubuntu and Opensuse are. Chrome is designed to rely heavily on net applications, the others are designed to rely much more on the desktop. Comparing them to Chrome is nothing less than comparing Apples to Oranges.

Re:How? (2, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205514)

Comparing them to Chrome is nothing less than comparing Apples to Oranges.

I've never heard of an Orange. Is it similar to an Apple Mac?

:P

Re:How? (1)

oPless (63249) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205782)

No but there are tangerines [wikipedia.org] and apricots [actapricot.org] does that help?

Orange Micro (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205786)

Back when Macs still used 68000 series CPUs, Orange Micro [wikipedia.org] made single-board PCs that plugged into a NuBus slot on a Macintosh II, allowing Mac owners to run MS-DOS and Windows and their apps.

Re:Orange Micro (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206598)

That sounds vaguely, vaguely familiar. But I've always been on x86 (and Windows/Linux), so I wouldn't know. Interesting stuff though, thanks for the reply to a comic post :)

Re:How? (2, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206200)

Orange is a wireless carrier. You can buy Apples from them.

http://shop.orange.co.uk/iphone/choose-your-plan

Re:How? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206260)

Comparing them to Chrome is nothing less than comparing Apples to Oranges.

I've never heard of an Orange. Is it similar to an Apple Mac?

:P

I think it might be closer to the Frankin Ace 1000 [old-computers.com] .

Re:How? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206814)

Linux and Windows would be oranges and apples. I think Linux and Chrome might be comparing oranges to tangerines.

snake oil (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205134)

Benchmarking operating system distributions in such a way is only useful for regression testing. Benchmarking operating systems that are designed only to run only on specific hardware against operating systems designed to run on as much hardware as possible won't provide any meaningful results.
They didn't even use the same file system for each install.

Re:snake oil (2, Insightful)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205532)

Actually, it will show which distribution will run best on your specific hardware. I agree that it's not meaningful to most. However, most is not all.

Re:snake oil (2, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206516)

Not really; Chromium OS is designed to run one single application. Its performance for video encoding or 7-zip compression is completely meaningless; it will never be running any of those applications. Heck, they did all sorts of I/O benchmarks when Chrome OS doesn't really touch the disk except for caching.

The only meaningful benchmarks they could have run would be to compare various browser benchmarks between Chromium OS and Chrome running on different platforms on the same hardware.

The result (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205142)

Windows 7 Ultimate wins again. Kicking penguin butt.

Feh (1)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205144)

Seven pages to tell us that they're pretty much the same? And Chrome's power management sucks? I'm wondering why they didn't do a Windows test, too. I thought that would be a requirement in these types of tests.

Re:Feh (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205292)

Chromium's power management may not suck. It seems that Chromium is not using EIST, so the processor is always running at 1600 MHz whereas the other distros could scale the processor down to 800 MHz to save power. Given that this system had a SSD, the CPU likely accounts for the vast majority of power consumption.

But otherwise it was a pretty bland review.

Re:Feh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205852)

actually the ssd would be the major drain, while a standard 2.5" hard disk may drain 5w while whirring at maximum speed, and an ssd is draining 2w; the amount time the hard disk would actually be in that heavy usage would be during boot or major downloads or other serious disk intensive work. while surfing the web, or running a benchmark that ignores hdd performance, hard drives will not be accessed to heavily. when spun down a standard hdd will take .5w and an ssd will still be drawing 2w. and the atom is actually rather efficient a processor, and wont drain excessivly. the 900mhz chip in other eeepcs like the 1000hd would drain much more.

Re:Feh (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205294)

Phoronix is a Unix, Linux, Solaris site, they never bother with testing windows. The results would be of little interest to their target audience.

The most boring benchmarking ever. (4, Insightful)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205148)

All the distros were very close in performance with the exception of one or two benchmarks. 10% is not a perceptable difference. Wake me up when Chrome fever is over and something interesting is posted about it.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205398)

Chromium can boot in 3 seconds. That is more than a 10% difference.

It boasts a new UI. It is going to be supported by more vendors as an OEM install than Linux ever had. It will bring Linux to the masses. It is designed to be secure. It will make Microsoft shit their pants.

That's good enough for me.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205538)

Chromium can boot in 3 seconds.

So basically no offline (relatively speaking) functionality and can boot in 3 seconds. Yay?

It boasts a new UI.

Yes, it looks like Chrome.

It will bring Linux to the masses.

Not really. I would barely call this Linux. I guess it uses a Linux kernel, but it has little similarities past that, as far as I can tell. I know, Linux == Kernel, but ...

I really don't see much of a threat at all right now. It's a huge push for thin-client. Not everyone wants a thin client. I wouldn't want a thin client, even on a netbook, since I don't have internet access everywhere.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205682)

So basically no offline (relatively speaking) functionality and can boot in 3 seconds. Yay?

All the web apps are using Gears, which caches everything for offline use. So all the apps will be usable offline. Your data is stored in the cloud, but also cached to the SSD. So it isn't fair to say it doesn't function offline.

Yes, it looks like Chrome.

I can't imagine I'll pass up KDE for this myself, but it passes the Grandma test. They know how to use a web browser already. You plug in a camera, a little overlay shows the camera. You literally drag and drop a photo from the camera to a Google Talk overlay, and it sends to the picture to that person.

Passing the Grandma test is important. Put Grandma (even if she knows XP) in front of 7 and Chrome. See which one she prefers.

Not really. I would barely call this Linux.

Moblin has a new UI, and people aren't saying Moblin doesn't count as Linux. Embedded Linux still counts as Linux. Headless servers still count as Linux.

Why is this not Linux, simply because there is a different UI?

This is more than a thin client, since a thin client can't be used offline. And apparently it is a bit of a misnomer to say you can't install other apps, since they installed the Phoronix test suite.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205860)

All the web apps are using Gears, which caches everything for offline use. So all the apps will be usable offline. Your data is stored in the cloud, but also cached to the SSD. So it isn't fair to say it doesn't function offline.

A thick thin client. I guess it might have it's uses, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to push onto normal desktop systems...

Passing the Grandma test is important. Put Grandma (even if she knows XP) in front of 7 and Chrome. See which one she prefers.

I agree, the Grandma test is important. I'm not sure which they would prefer. But I wasn't aware Google was trying to produce GrandmaOS. :)

Moblin has a new UI, and people aren't saying Moblin doesn't count as Linux. Embedded Linux still counts as Linux.

Good point on the embedded part.

This is more than a thin client, since a thin client can't be used offline. And apparently it is a bit of a misnomer to say you can't install other apps, since they installed the Phoronix test suite.

I'm still not sure - and apparently not many are - about whether it's actually a thin client or not. If you could use it like a normal, for lack of a better word, thick client, then I'd be much more interested.

I guess Gears works at any rate, but that strikes me as a hack. For example, you can't attach something to an e-mail in gmail's offline mode. If the functionality is significantly limited if in "offline" mode, then I'd still consider it a ... glorified thin client.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206896)

I guess Gears works at any rate, but that strikes me as a hack.

Gears is attempting to converge with the HTML5 offline stuff. It's a good idea for web apps in general, and it happens to be usable for the Chrome OS.

For example, you can't attach something to an e-mail in gmail's offline mode.

That strikes me as a limitation of Gmail, not Gears.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205964)

For one it doesn't pass the grandma test because most of the time grandma knows Windows. Tell them one is Windows, and the other is Linux and they will pick Windows because they -know- Windows. They don't want change. They don't know how to even use the computer. Move an icon over to the left rather than the right and you'd think their hard drive was destroyed by how little work they can get done.

And yeah, its going to work great with Google apps but lets say you don't use Google apps. Its useless then. Yeah, if every grandma got Chrome OS it might work, but trying to get it to work with Windows XP, 7 and Vista? That isn't going to be easy.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206208)

Except Windows Vista and 7 have changed enough that Grandma doesn't know it anymore. I put my mother (grandma in her own right) in front of KDE and OpenOffice. She was able to figure out KDE just fine. And she thought OpenOffice was MS Office, even though I told her it was different.

Chrome is different enough that no one will confuse it with Windows, but if you can figure out a web browser, you can figure out Chrome.

The demos of Chrome do show shortcuts for pulling up Yahoo Mail and Hotmail as well. So I'm sure they're working to make sure other web apps work as well. Though non-HTML 5 apps won't support drag and drop, and such.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206696)

Except Windows Vista and 7 have changed enough that Grandma doesn't know it anymore. I put my mother (grandma in her own right) in front of KDE and OpenOffice. She was able to figure out KDE just fine. And she thought OpenOffice was MS Office, even though I told her it was different.

OpenOffice, unless you need to do powerpoint stuff (and, as I recall people saying, if you have Excel macros), is really good and has come a long way. A lot of people that I know, adept or not at computer usage, use it with no problems at all. I can recommend it without reservation to random people that don't want to spend the $300 or whatever it is for Office. I do like MS Office still, it seems very polished still - but OpenOffice.org is shaping up to be a very good product and already is.

KDE, though... I've had really, really mixed results with that one. Sometimes it works fine, some people fine gnome a little easier, and I've had people get completely confused with it... and not with Windows 7 (they were used to XP). In fact, with two test subjects (hehe), I went from Windows XP to openSuSE (KDE) to Ubuntu (gnome) to Windows 7. Windows 7 has actually booted faster (old Athlon x64 ... 3500+ or something like that, with ~1gb RAM) and worked better with all peripherals. And hasn't frozen - Ubuntu was actually freezing occasionally, which I was surprised at - probably hardware related though.

All that to say ... the desktop environment "Grandma friendliness" is still a toss-up, in my mind, between the latest Windows, gnome, and KDE. I personally would put Windows and Gnome at a tie and KDE second... I liked gnome better than KDE for the most part, but actually work more efficiently with Windows than Gnome. May just be I know the keyboard shortcuts way better :)

Chrome is different enough that no one will confuse it with Windows, but if you can figure out a web browser, you can figure out Chrome.

That's a big if. Most people have no clue what a file is or a folder is, let alone a filesystem. Most people don't know that a browser is really just a program that requests/displays information from their network connection. I suppose if they really thought about it, they might arrive at that conclusion. But if you now tell them, after they got USED to OpenOffice.org/MS Office, that their documents are all Google documents ("what? what if it's a Microsoft Word document?" ...) and you need to type that in the address bar or .. whatever ...

The demos of Chrome do show shortcuts for pulling up Yahoo Mail and Hotmail as well. So I'm sure they're working to make sure other web apps work as well. Though non-HTML 5 apps won't support drag and drop, and such.

IMO, this sounds great for something like a netbook. I'm really, really uncertain about the putting this on a desktop system... the question being "why" :)

But I guess it's good they're doing it. I'm fine if it works for people. Coolness. I hope it doesn't encourage a "under-functional" thinking of Linux though, too.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205590)

Chromium can boot in 3 seconds. That is more than a 10% difference.

So does Moblin 2.1. It's actually pretty nice. Give it a few more months and it will be really nice.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205694)

The fastest I've heard from Moblin is 5-10 seconds. I'm not knocking 5 seconds. That's pretty impressive. But Chrome is smoking fast.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205618)

It will make Microsoft shit their pants.

Will it, really? I don't think so. They are still going to sell W7 and Office and life will go on for Microsoft. And when people get Chrome and boot it up only to find IE8, Word, and Excel don't exist, and the inability to install Favorite Shareware application foo, then we'll be right back to square fucking one.

*shrug*

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205740)

Microsoft went nuts doing their best to stop Best Buy and other retailers from selling Linux in retail. They won't stop retailers from selling a Chrome netbook.

That alone proves that Microsoft will panic.

With Chrome gain 10% market share in a year? Maybe not. But Firefox grew slowly over several years, and I suspect Chrome could follow a similar growth chart. Most end-users don't install an OS on their own period. They get an OS when they buy a PC.

Given that retailers will sell this, it will be fast, secure, cheap, easy to use, and the merits can be demonstrated in the store in seconds, it stands a good chance to take off. All the users have to do is buy the fast laptop with the brand name they know (Google) that is cheap.

Would you honestly bet against that?

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205976)

Frankly, yes I would. I suspect that if Chrome is ever actually installed on computers it'll be dual-booting with Windows 7 Starter Edition, and supplied by about two manufacturers. Then it'll fade away when the news gets around that, basically, you can't *do* anything with it except go online.

Niche, at most. I'd not buy any shares in Google based on Chrome OS.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206136)

Well, most people i know have more and more gone over to not do *anything* but being online. People have changed their computing habits significantly since internet became all the rage, computers haven't.

Even at work (im a sysadmin) most of the work i do is in a browser. Most of the people i help do something in a browser. If the internet/browser/site is gone, the computer is useless. Games and old applications that havent got an online eqvivalent is the only thing that makes them use a local application. And ofcourse updates, security updates, virii, spyware, adware, system failiures, defrags, copying files to usb sticks and such pleasant productive tasks.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206240)

Windows 7 Starter Edition won't let you run more than 3 windows at a time, and will be considerably slower than Chrome. Both have restrictions. Except Grandma will fill one with viruses and spyware, where as the other will be secure. I know which one I want to give Grandma.

Most users do live in their web browser these days. I'm not one of them. I likely wouldn't run Chrome personally. However, I will recommend it to people who do live out of their web browser.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206924)

Windows 7 Starter Edition won't let you run more than 3 windows at a time

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Or else, given your posts here, you're intentionally spreading FUD. First, comparison with the Starter edition is at least misleading. In the USA the most usual versions are going to be Home Premium or higher. Unless Granny has a tiny netbook (which I wouldn't foist on any of my elderly relatives), you'd have to bend over backwards to get your grandmother a Starter Edition machine. Second, your assertion about the 3 application limit is just plain untrue. Go educate yourself [arstechnica.com] a bit before posting FUD.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206220)

I'm reading this thread while ubuntu netbook remix upgrades from 9.04 to 9.10 (why oh why won't 9.10 image install for almost half of users? but 9.04 has zero issues, wtf)... I tested out Moblin 2.1 final and 9.10 remix, I can say that they're about 70% ready for prime time. Check back in about a year and we'll have some serious netbook contenders. Moblin is really, really cool, (and snappy as hell) but is too trimmed down for the power user. I suspect Chromium OS will be roughly the same. 9.10 UNR allows you to swap between standard GUI and "Netbook GUI" on the fly - that's why I finally decided on running that. And dual booting Windows. Oh, btw windows will freak out if you repartition the drives, even if you do it non-destructively in gparted. What a waste of time. Now I have to figure out how to install XP with just a frickin USB stick....
 
Anyways my point is, Microsoft has a full year before Linux is fully ready for Netbooks. In the meantime, XP and Win 7 starter edition are both plenty snappy, and don't really make much difference in the cost of the device. I doubt netbooks with linux on them will crack 15% of (retail! brick and mortar) sales. Given the wide discrepancy in build quality from model to model, it's highly recommended one check them out in person first. Glad I did - the HP minis have significantly better keyboards than even the storied samsung NC10 and NC20s. And most brick and mortar shops (at least my local Fry's and Best Buy) only carry Windows models.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206722)

9.10 UNR allows you to swap between standard GUI and "Netbook GUI" on the fly - that's why I finally decided on running that

Aaaand it appears that feature was removed in the 9.10 version, for inexplicable reasons. Fucking brilliant. And my sound isn't working (But it works in wubi 9.10 motherfucker...)

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206022)

Most people, i would say about 99% of all computer users worldwide, would suffice with Google Apps and do a splendid job.

They think they need MS Office because "thats what people use" and because historically you have had to have the same office suite/version to be able to share documents. That have really changed lately thanks to online suites but its still not apparent to most people yet. I have yet to have someone introduced properly to Google Apps be anything but amazed.

Most shareware is about keeping the computer going and make it suck less. If you dig down in top lists for shareware you'll find much is about security, file sharing, backup and registry cleaners etc. If Google can deliver a zero maintenance OS im certain they wont be missed at all.

But, the real reason Microsoft will shit their pants is that they have competition from someone willing to spend a dollar on marketing. That this adversary also owns the biggest ad network on the internet isn't that fun either i suppose.

The danger for Microsoft isn't loosing market share, its about loosing enough market share to be forced to compete on price. Just look at their losses thanks to Asus doing a lame halfbaked attempt at using Linux on their netbooks? Microsoft got off easy because Asus just bent over and took it like pros. Imagine if Asus had told Microsoft go soil themselves?

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

marjancek (1215230) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205644)

No, it doesn't boot in 3 seconds, but in 7, and only with SSDs. And that's more than the 5 seconds we've already seen: http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/ [lwn.net] Anyhow; isntant Linuxes in ROM are the future, so no use in scrapping milliseconds from boot-up to a capped down OS that has no applications.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205812)

I saw a video demonstration that went from pushing power, to having a login screen in 3 seconds. I'm not sure what hardware was used.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205894)

Chromium ... will bring Linux to the masses. It is designed to be secure. It will make Microsoft shit their pants.

A huge percentage of people who bought linux-based netbooks returned them and bought Windows netbooks instead. [informationweek.com] They did this because they couldn't take their usual Windows software on the go. If a wonderfully featureful and customizable OS like Ubuntu couldn't wean people off of netbooks what makes you think a one trick pony like Chrome will?

People are willing to pay extra for a product that works the way they want it to.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206298)

Chrome netbooks aren't claiming to be a typical PC. They are very clear in their marketing. It is a web appliance basically.

And frankly, if you're running Vista Home Premium, or 7 on a netbook, and trying to install Photoshop, you're in for a world of disappointment. If you're buying a netbook for anything other than basic word processing, playing media, and connecting to the internet, you're doing it wrong.

There is a bunch of debate and FUS over netbook returns. Some retailers have said returns were the same percentage wise for Linux and Windows boxes. Others said Linux had a much higher return rate. I'm not sure which is the truth, but the matter certainly isn't clear.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206510)

I'd like to think that with the name "netbook" people know what they're intended for, but they still put up with the performance hit to run their favourite apps, however poorly. Obviously Photoshop isn't important to the netbook demographic, but Bejeweled and MS Word and MSN Messenger certainly are.

The "world of disappointment" you mention isn't caused by running familiar apps slowly, it's caused by being forced into inferior and unfamiliar facsimiles.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206550)

Yes, a lot of people are going to be "doing it wrong" and the result will be an uphill battle for Google.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

kTag (24819) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206194)

It boasts a new UI ? Compared to what ? Chromium browser ? Previous version of Chromium ? Another OS ?
Sentences starting with "it will" and "it is going to" are just useless.
It is designed to be secure, like all other browsers/OS and it will be full of bugs like all other browsers/OS which are going to make it a lot less secure.
Nothing interesting there for me.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206448)

If you think that Windows and IE were designed to be secure, then I don't know what to tell you.

There is a world of difference between Chrome's security model, and Windows.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

kTag (24819) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206934)

Windows since NT version has been designed to be secure. Really I think they had a good shot at it. The result is not impressive, but they tried. If you are talking about bloat and bad decision leading to complex issues, I agree with you. But you can't say that a modern version of Windows has not been designed to be secure.
IE now, it's a different story. Actually I think IE8 use the same security model than Chrome (the browser), each tab/window gets it's own process, same with plugins no ? I actually don't know enough of IE to really talk about this...

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206456)

It is going to be supported by more vendors as an OEM install than Linux ever had.

No, I think the Tivo has that honor.

Re:The most boring benchmarking ever. (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206856)

I would love it if my TiVo booted in anything less than 5 minutes...

If you really care about Linux performance... (5, Informative)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205178)

There's been an enormous improvement in the Linux scheduler in recent months [multimedia.cx] --in some cases the performance improvements are as high as 60-80% with simple multithreaded apps like video encoders. The instant 2.6.32 comes out officially, expect to start seeing some completely absurd results in stupid "comparisons between Linux distros" like these, where the distros that happened to update to .32 trash the ones that haven't yet.

Re:If you really care about Linux performance... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205196)

Nuh uh! You aren't gonna get me to EVER click another link hosted in the .cx domain.

Re:If you really care about Linux performance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205700)

Those "enormous improvements" in the scheduler need to be seen in the context of previous enormous performance regressions. A lot of the "improvement" is simply returning to earlier standards of performance. The really positive aspect is that there is now a good test case which will prevent similar regressions passing unnoticed by the kernel developers as happened before.

Re:If you really care about Linux performance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205960)

Cool. I just installed the 2.6.32 kernel from Ubuntu Lucid (I'm running Karmic, BTW) and the performance is better when using Handbrake/x264. Previously my machine was 30-40% idle when encoding where now it's 10-15% idle. I'm seeing about a 30-40% decrease in overall encoding time.

I have been doing a lot of x264 encoding lately so a boost in performance is great. I know one thing that helps is disabling the "ondemand" CPU frequency scaling. I hate that damn thing. The problem is that the OS will move processes around to different CPU cores so the ondemand thing keeps flipping the cores between different speeds. Since that speed switching isn't instantaneous you see a dip in performance as each processor changes its clock (run the openssl benchmarks with ondemand enabled and disabled and you will see the difference in speed).

More FUD paid for by M$ (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205188)

4 comments and no M$ hate? What kind of slashdot article is this!?!?

Next you're gonna expect me to read the article!

"benched" (1, Informative)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205232)

In sports "benched" usually means taken off the field. I like this tech usage (benchmarked) -- which is new to me.

Re:"benched" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205262)

Oh yeah? Well I can bench 380 marks, so there!

Re:"benched" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205460)

For certain values of 'Mark'. The Mark I know is about 400 lbs, so if thats the case, Superman, you are quite strong indeed.

Re:"benched" (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205630)

For certain values of 'Mark'. The Mark I know is about 400 lbs, so if thats the case, Superman, you are quite strong indeed.

According to xe.com, the Mark is currently about 0.46 Pounds. [xe.com]

Re:"benched" (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205350)

Except when "benched" is short for "bench-pressed", as in "He benched 200 pounds."

Phoronix, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30205408)

I can give you the results from any Phoronix benchmark article: Ubuntu won.

Program loader, not a true OS (3, Insightful)

zorro-z (1423959) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205564)

As I watched the Google Chrome OS rollout, it occurred to me that, when it comes down to it, Chrome isn't so much a full OS as it is a program loader, a la DOS. As the presenter explained, most of what an OS does Chrome *won't* do- no scheduler, no other apps, barely a file system, etc. What it will do is load a Web browser, and then get out of the way. That strikes me as rather similar to the experience I had back in the day using SLIPNot to simulate a graphical browser over a SLIP connection.

This isn't a criticism; far from it. It may just be that precisely what netbooks need is a program loader to start a Web browser + then get out of the way, rather than a full-fledged OS to tax their limited- by design- resources.

Now, if I could just find a way to load SLIPNot on my Eee...

Re:Program loader, not a true OS (1)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205808)

Hold up.

OS = Operating System
DOS = Disk Operating System

All an operating system does is get the computer going. All the rest of the stuff you are mentioning is fluff.

Re:Program loader, not a true OS (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206462)

Well since Chromium is basically the Chrome Browser running on Linux/X11, I see it as more like GEM or Windows 3.11, except it lacks tiled windows and has a fairly primitive API.

Not the banchmarks I care for. (2, Funny)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205632)

While Ubuntu Netbook Remix (soon to be "Edition") owns Moblin in most graphs the reason I switched to moblin was because of its fast start up, about about 20 seconds.

Another distro xPUD boots in about 10 seconds, but flash doesn't work out of the box.

However, while youtube runs beautifully in moblin (including fullscreen!) other flash games are too slow and there is still no shockwave, so what I want is a linux that boots fast, runs flash ok and runs shockwave somehow (maybe with wine?) and the more of these features that run out of the box the better, for anything else I can use the terminal.

musings (1)

Sterculius (1675612) | more than 3 years ago | (#30205866)

At first, Google impressed me quite a bit, but their latest forays into programming languages (Go!) and the OS market ... yawn. Honestly, Chrome in no way compares to FireFox either. It is just a light, quick browser that is light and quick because it doesn't do the truly great things that FireFox can do. The Google "genius club" isn't going to take over the world, no matter how arrogantly they try. However, if they upset the drone army at Microsoft, I applaud their efforts anyway.

Absurd (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#30206006)

The testing concept was pretty absurd - (relatively) stable netbook releases vs a new distro that can barely be considered in 'Alpha' and really doesn't have a platform yet. If Ubuntu, Fedora or Suse had one of their Alpha distros benchmarked vs something stable they would be screaming bloody murder. Wake me when Chromium (much better name for the OS than Chrome by the way) is about to get released.

Too many pages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30206130)

7 pages? k thx bye.

Stop it please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30206332)

WTF, could someone stop these endless Chrome OS advertisement posts on /.

WE HAVE HEARD YOU and know what Chrome OS is, okay? (And no, thanks, I don't need it.)

general thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30206834)

Chrome OS is long from beta, why bother benchmarking it now? Anyway it's OS who don't do much apart from using mobile phones for exploring the net

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?