×

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!

Google's Chrome OS To Launch In Fall

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the wish-chrome-would-work-for-my-gmail dept.

Google 375

Kidfork writes "On Wednesday Google's vice president of product management said that this fall Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows. More than 70 million users already use the Chrome Browser, and Google expects at least 1 million users of the OS by day one of release."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

375 comments

hmm... (1, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430152)

Gonna give this one a try on the ol Dell Mini 9. I wonder though...how will gamers respond?

Re:hmm... (2, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430232)

With the way the game industry it trying to ruin PC gaming with DRMs these days I don't think it's going to matter.

Re:hmm... (0)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430390)

Most gamers are young people that didn't loose their interest in games yet. They will complain for being too stupid to understand that downloading a webbrowser OS is only useful to browse the wbe with.

Adults will hopefully not make the mistake for downloading Chrome OS to play Win32 games and the ones who do not will hopefully make the idiots realise that they are idiots.

Re:hmm... (0)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430492)

Most gamers are young people who have not lost their interest in games yet. They will complain because they are too stupid to understand that downloading a web browser OS is only useful to browse the web with.

Adults will hopefully not make the mistake of downloading Chrome OS to play Win32 games and the ones who do not will hopefully make the idiots realise that they are idiots.

Fixed that for you.

Re:hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430868)

Most gamers are young people that didn't loose their interest in games yet.

I did. My interest in games was too tight.

Re:hmm... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430938)

Actually - that's just plain wrong. According to the organisors of the international gaming olympiad - the profile of the typical hardcore gamer is 40+, single, high-earning with significant disposable income and not much to spend it on but gaming gear.

Re:hmm... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431076)

the profile of the typical hardcore gamer is 40+, single, high-earning with significant disposable income and not much to spend it on but gaming gear.

They also must have low IQ's as well... Not much to spend it on? are these people brain dead meat puppets? Motorcycles, Cars, Jetpacks, Overpriced stereos... I can list 90,000 things other than videogames to spend my high-earning money on that is not only more fun, but get's you way more chicks...

A sports car is more impressive to a lady than a 6 digit Xbox achievement point number.
A motorcycle is far more fun than ANY driving game on any gaming platform.
Racing with your local racing club on a real track is far more fun than any game. $10,000 can get you a nice Miata and all the racing upgrades to really tear it up at the track. a 1.8 with a turbo in a miata makes for real fun on a real track (not a redneck oval)
Hang gliding is an absolute rush.
etc....

Re:hmm... (4, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430394)

I'm sure farmville and mafiawars will get higher framerates on these systems and have a totally unfair advantage

Re:hmm... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430412)

Gamers won't use it.

Re:hmm... (2, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430640)

It's a hacked up version of linux. Even if you could get WINE working with it, You're only going to be able to get a few windows games working. However, that's not what the OS is intended for. It's a platform for a web browser. It's the most minimalistic OS since the 80s.

It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?

Actually, considering you can get Chrome on all 3 major OSes as it is, I don't understand why anybody would use ChromeOS on a real PC at all anyway. Maybe on a little netbook or something... but on a real pc/laptop? why?

Re:hmm... (3, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430982)

It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?

Because if that is all you do, then it *will* do it better, as that is all it can do, making it faster. One example of a perfect place is my netbook, that I only use when I travel. I only check email, browse and hit facebook. Of course, this is after I spend a couple of hours updating Windows XP because I hadn't used the thing in two months. I'm also trying to get us to move our accounting software to something that is web based, on our intranet server. If I could do that, then this is all we would need in the office as well, as everything else we do in via the web. Even MS *.doc files can be read online, which is fine as we don't generate many of those.

Re:hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430948)

Other than the hardcore 'nerd' gamers (the ones hanging out on TomsHardware, etc.) I don't think gamers really care about the hardware or OS they are using. Look at the number happy to play on consoles vs. PCs. If the game is compelling, they'll buy whatever device they need to play it. Right now, its probably not going to be Chrome OS device however if Google do succeed with NativeClient (and I have a pretty good feeling that they will) and the gaming industry get their way, games will be downloaded from the cloud and will play in any browser that can run NativeClient. They've demonstrated this with Quake running in the browser and as long as games are willing to conform with OpenGL, then its probably going to make the hardware/OS even less important if you can run NativeClient on the device.

Not me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430192)

I prefer to keep my data where it belongs, on my machine and encrypted on backup servers.

Can only guess... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430202)

We can only guess what information it will suck up and report back to Google.

Re:Can only guess... (2, Insightful)

minus9 (106327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430288)

"We can only guess what information it will suck up and report back to Google."

We can only guess what information $PROPRIETARY_OS will suck up and report back to $VENDOR.

Re:Can only guess... (0)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430366)

We can only guess that you haven't analysed every component in your CPU, and every line of source in the compiled version of your copy of Lunix which you run (betcha didn't build from source from scratch).

This is why, contrary to Google's nonsense about Windows being too insecure to use, it's never appropriate to decide that one operating system is too insecure because it may be made to leak data while another implicitly will not. You should assume that every workstation may leak data, and deal with the problem at the border by analysing everything going in and out using sophisticated off-the-shelf and custom IDS, etc.

This is also why Google Apps are *never* appropriate.

Re:Can only guess... (1)

minus9 (106327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430540)

"We can only guess that you haven't analysed every component in your CPU"

I can safely guess that the processor in my computer doesn't even have a networking stack built in.

Perhaps if you're so confident in the security of windows you'd like to explain why 98% of the email hitting my server comes from windows botnets?

Re:Can only guess... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430690)

I can safely guess that the processor in my computer doesn't even have a networking stack built in.

Why? Did you analyse it? Do you have a good reason to trust AMD and Intel? You're constructing a strawman, anyway, as you don't need something that sophisticated to backdoor a seemingly secure system. What would be entirely unreasonable to "guess" is that there are no undocumented opcodes or sequences of fetched memory values which will cause the processor to bypass its current protection settings.

Perhaps if you're so confident in the security of windows you'd like to explain why 98% of the email hitting my server comes from windows botnets?

Because 90% of unmanaged desktops run Windows.

Re:Can only guess... (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430716)

Perhaps because 98% of the people out there who are retarded when it comes to securely using their PCs happen to use windows?

Also because 85%+ market share is where the money is? I guarantee you that if Linux or OSX had 85% of the market share, Either OS would be identically compromised on a similar widespread basis.

Speaking of which, at hacking competitions, which OS is usually the one to fall first?

Re:Can only guess... (1, Flamebait)

minus9 (106327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430860)

"Perhaps because 98% of the people out there who are retarded when it comes to securely using their PCs happen to use windows?"

I don't think calling all windows users retarded is entirely fair. Some of them have no choice.

Re:Can only guess... (4, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431014)

No no, don't get me wrong. I use windows at work because I have to as well. I dual boot it at home to play games because most games I want to play are windows native and I got tired of fighting with WINE and VMs trying to get 80 to 90% functionality... I boot into Linux for web browsing, email, IM, i.e. essentially everything but gaming.

I neither love nor hate windows. It is what it is. It's a mature, robust OS that covers the vast majority of needs of most people... just like the other two do.

My point was that most people who don't know anything about how to properly use their computer when it comes to security (don't click on the flashing ads on the suspect web pages. don't install software you don't know the source of. don't click on links in emails from people you don't know. scan for malware on a regular basis, etc. etc) are using windows.

These same people would, in theory, be just as careless under OSX or linux, the difference is due to the lack of viruses/malware/developed exploits for thsoe operating systems (currently), those users would be playing traditional russian roulette around with a gun with only 1 bullet instead of the fully loaded gun that windows represents.

I man the systems support line for a major software company. I work with these people every day. They're not bad people, they just have never had any training on how not to be security retarded, and they don't really want any training because they have other stuff to worry about... until they find out they have a massive security breach and they're about to get sued.

Re:Can only guess... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430850)

I dunno; "Never" is a pretty strong word. Google Apps are certainly fine for my little sister typing up her homework assignments and writing bad poetry. It's certainly a far cry from that to Business, though (including sensitive personal business).

Re:Can only guess... (5, Insightful)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430984)

Since Google's entire business model revolves around advertising (and thus, customer targeting), while Microsoft, Apple (and Linux, in a fashion)'s business model revolves around selling OSes, I think it would be pretty easy for MS or Apple to simply say, "We will never collect any data about our OS users' application usage, browsing habits, or other personal information."

Google simply can't afford to say that. So no, not exactly the same thing at all.

Re:Can only guess... (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430370)

Except it's open source. And it can't suck up any information you don't enter. If you're worried about people spying on what you do online, either use encrypted connections, or don't go online.

You might want to check over your shoulders whenever you go out in public to make sure nobody is following you - you never know, they may find out what brand of toilet paper you buy, or see what type of films you enjoy watching at the cinema!

Re:Can only guess... (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430578)

Except it's open source.

Wait, Google's servers (where the data is stored) are open source? Can I audit their deployment too?

And it can't suck up any information you don't enter.

What? Afaict, your argument reduces to, "It's secure because at least if I want to keep something private they don't force me to give it to them." Similarly, every government guarantees freedom of expression because they can't do anything about internalised expression (dreaming?), I guess.

You might want to check over your shoulders whenever you go out in public to make sure nobody is following you - you never know, they may find out what brand of toilet paper you buy, or see what type of films you enjoy watching at the cinema!

Ah, the second prong on the anti-privacy trident. When it's not, "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't be doing it," it's, "actually I've decided you have nothing worthwhile to hide anyway!"

Re:Can only guess... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430724)

Wait, Google's servers (where the data is stored) are open source? Can I audit their deployment too?

Obviously that information has already been "sucked up" if it's on their servers. OP seems to have been thinking more of what info it will suck up even when you're on non-Google owned websites.

What? Afaict, your argument reduces to, "It's secure because at least if I want to keep something private they don't force me to give it to them." Similarly, every government guarantees freedom of expression because they can't do anything about internalised expression (dreaming?), I guess.

I didn't say it was secure. I said that if you don't want people to know certain info, don't give it out on unsecured connections or using software that you haven't vetted for security. This has nothing to do with government, because you don't have the option to opt-out of your government (unless you move country).

Ah, the second prong on the anti-privacy trident. When it's not, "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't be doing it," it's, "actually I've decided you have nothing worthwhile to hide anyway!"

Yep, I pretty much think that every time I see someone on /. whine about their privacy and security. American liberties are being eroded on many fronts with stuff like the PATRIOT act, and these guys are more worried about Google improving the relevance of their advertisements instead of going out and killing the government, or doing whatever the hell else you're meant to do with the 2nd amendment. Note: I am not American, I'm just pointing this out as the majority of posters here probably are American.

Re:Can only guess... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430926)

Obviously that information has already been "sucked up" if it's on their servers. OP seems to have been thinking more of what info it will suck up even when you're on non-Google owned websites.

But the purpose of ChromeOS is to ensure that all your data - documents, spreadsheets, etc. - are stored/manipulated/analysed by Google's servers. Current Windows systems aren't like this. Unless you are really interesting, what's on your drive remains on your drive.

American liberties are being eroded on many fronts with stuff like the PATRIOT act, and these guys are more worried about Google improving the relevance of their advertisements instead of going out and killing the government,

Who do you think builds the tools that government uses to follow and exploit its people? Would you like a list?

Re:Can only guess... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431010)

Who do you think builds the tools that government uses to follow and exploit its people? Would you like a list?

Yes, please, that sounds like fun :p

Re:Can only guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430584)

First of all, how will an encrypted connection protect you if your browser reports what you are seeing?

Second, VISA (AmEx etc) already know what movies you see at the cinema and what brand of toilet paper you buy (unless you pay by cash as people used to do in the 20th century "as I've been told").

Re:Can only guess... (1)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430732)

Actually, no. Visa and Amex -- and MasterCard and Discover -- only know how much you pay in total at the checkout. Even if you're buying a lot of tinfoil to make your hats. They know WHERE you shop -- and when -- but not what you buy.

The MERCHANT knows the details, though. But they can't tie it to you, specifically. Oh, unless you use one of those VIP cards...

Re:Can only guess... (3, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430794)

If your browser is open source, you can change its behaviour to be in line with what you want. Duh. Then you just have to worry about the security of your actual connection, and what any person or machine at the other end of your connection is going to do with the data you are transmitting.

Yes, I don't care who knows what I like to buy or do at the cinema. Though I haven't entered any supermarket incentive card schemes because I know they're pretty much just for marketing schemes, and I don't feel the need to squeeze 0.1% extra value or whatever out of every purchase I make.

Re:Can only guess... (3, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430410)

Browse the source code line for line to know exactly how it behaves, you mean?

Re:Can only guess... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430758)

Browse the source code line for line to know exactly how it behaves, you mean?

Yes, exactly. What, you think that's unpossible? There's a legion of nerds out here who will prove you wrong.

Re:Can only guess... (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431064)

ChromeOS will update automatically like Chrome does, so at some point you just have to decide if you trust Google or not. If not then I'm sure Apple and Microsoft will happily take control of your computer instead.

Um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430216)

Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system? If IE had to be removed from Windows then why can Google build their OS with Chrome as the basis for the operating system? This was a giant monopoly suit...

Can we say double standard?

Re:Um... (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430276)

Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system?

No, integrating a web browser into an operating system is completely legal. It is illegal, however, to attempt to use an effective monopoly in the desktop operating systems market to gain an effective monopoly in the web browser market.

Google has approximately no market share in the desktop OS market, so this is not an issue. They may have an effective monopoly in the search engine market (debatable), but they are not requiring Chrome or ChromeOS for their search engine so this is also not an issue.

Re:Um... (-1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430316)

Applefan,

(1) Monopolising behaviour is not the same as having "an effective monopoly" - indeed, MS didn't have an effective monopoly either. Read your Sherman.

(2) MS didn't "require" IE for its browser under Windows.

(3) In the late '90s, check out the share of Windows desktops and compare with today's share by Google of the search market.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430550)

As was already stated, having a large marketshare is fine. Using marketshare in one area to lock users into your product in another area is the problem, and is only a problem when the company has been declared to have a monopoly in an area.

Microsoft was clearly violating antitrust law and leveraging their monopoly to take over other markets. Eg. giving away a browser "free" when you're forced to buy their operating system. Microsoft got off with almost no punishment, so I'm not sure why you're crying them a river.

Re:Um... (0, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430804)

You were as forced to buy the Microsoft OS then as you are to use Google today. Giving away your OS/browser on your home page is akin in today's terms to supplying a browser on the install CD. "But you have to consciously install it!" I hear you retort. Well, do you have to consciously install Google Apps? And, if not, does it count as always installed, or never installed? The point is, whether it's installed is a technical point only relevant to admin/developers - what matters is how available it is.

Not crying for MS, just applying standards evenly. Unfortunately they became much more political after the anti-trust nonsense, which was to the detriment of business in general. This decade barely recognises a difference between corporation and government, and the MS anti-trust trial was just bringing MS in line.

I see I got modded down for mentioning Apple, who is really the initiator of the client end of the current wave of disposable/cloud computing. For the record, Jobs sucks and is far worse than MS, and it's a shame that people feel the need to mod down when they disagree rather than arguing their point.

Re:Um... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431088)

>giving away your OS/browser on your home page is akin in today's terms to supplying a browser on the install CD.

Which is perfectly legal - every Linux distro out there does it too - and was never the issue with microsoft. The issue was integrating windows 98 with I.E. in such a way that it was not possible to use one without the other - literally you couldn't uninstall IE as windows would STOP WORKING if you did.

Sure you could install another browser AS WELL - but since IE had to be there anyway and couldn't be removed - most people never bothered or even found out that other browsers existed (at the time) - and THAT was what was illegal.

Re:Um... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430702)

MS didn't have an effective monopoly either. Read your Sherman.

Micro$erf,

Read your Jackson [justice.gov]. Microsoft "[enjoyed] monopoly power" as defined by the Sherman act, and that finding of fact was never overturned [wikipedia.org].

Sorry, you were saying something funny?

Re:Um... (1, Offtopic)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431046)

You are doing what is typical of a layperson when they're met with technical language, which is to take two different phrases with some similar words then to assume they mean the same thing. Tech geeks hate it when non-geeks do this but somehow think it's acceptable for them to do it in other fields.

I asserted, "MS didn't have an effective monopoly."

You asserted, "MS enjoyed monopoly power." You will notice throughout the document that MS is described never as a monopoly but repeatedly as having "monpoly power".

A "monopoly" can be identified by market share - it's an everyday term, and a term which is defined more precisely by economists (with market share taken into account).

"Monopoly power" has a specific legal definition in Sherman which is not constructed in terms of market share.

Re:Um... (2, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430738)

Still, you have not debunked his main point. MS used its dominance (not monopoly) in the OS market to get users to use IE. They didn't force anyone to use IE, but by bundling it with Windows, they used their OS market share in order to increase their web browser market share. That is a monopolizing behavior.

If Google had used its search engine to get you to use Chrome or Chrome OS you would have had a point. AFAIK, anyone, with any web browser can use Google's search engine. If anything, they may be using Chrome to get people to use Google Search more - but since they have no dominance in the OS and web browser markets, this is a non-issue. I know, Sherman does not talk about Monopoly, but if a minor player in the web browser/OS market uses them to increase the number of people using their (already dominant) search engine, this is no violation of the Sherman act.

P.S.
What does "applefan" have to do with this?

Re:Um... (4, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430668)

Do you need to use Chrome to use Google - no

Do you need to use ChromeOS to use Chrome - no

Do you need to use Google if you use Chrome and ChromeOS ... probably not

Do Google have a large market share in browsers - No

Do Google have a large market share in OS's - No

No monopoly behaviour here ....

Re:Um... (-1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430284)

No, no. That was at a time when Microsoft wasn't doing the "correct" thing for a large corporation and filling Washington with lobbyists. Much as people may hate Microsoft, they were shockingly apolitical (and progressive in matters of equality, e.g. gay employment rights) before Clinton saw a way to try to squeeze them.

Google caught on to that early and are already sorting out the troughs.

Re:Um... (2, Informative)

minus9 (106327) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430346)

"Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system?"

No it was "said" to be illegal to abuse a monopoly position in one market to take over another. In fact it wasn't just "said", it was and remains the law.

This isn't going to compete with Windows (2, Insightful)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430224)

It's going to compete with Linux.

In other news: 2011. Year of the Chrome Desktop (tm).

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430272)

I dunno... vendors like Dell who are going to be marketing Android-based mobile devices might stuff ChromeOS on to netbooks and computers for grannie...

Guess we'll see =)

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430308)

And Android. If Chrome is just for running a browser, why not run a browser on an Android OS?

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (0, Troll)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430446)

It _IS_ Linux, fscktard...

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430680)

It _IS_ Linux, fscktard...

WHat are you, twelve?

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430956)

WHat are you, twelve?

What are you, someone who is incapable of using their shift key properly?

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430452)

It's going to compete with Linux.

True, until game-manufacturers come up with Chrome-compatible games and other software companies make chrome-compatible applications?
Already, Office exists by Google too... and creating a replacement for minesweeper really isn't that difficult.

Re:This isn't going to compete with Windows (2, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430682)

It's an OS to launch and run a browser, which does *all* the work .... and do as little as possible otherwise ....

It's competing with very little ....at the moment, except if you have a thin client desktop machine ?

no, that's not what it's for (2, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430240)

ChromeOS is not general competition "with Microsoft Windows". Windows has always been about delivering services on your desktop using the native CPU power and full set of UI capabilities, ensuring availability, low latency, full features and (relative) privacy.

Google Apps deliver a quite limited subset of general office suite features available only under certain environments. They are completely inadequate where privacy is of concern.

ChromeOS is another option for Netbooks - i.e. it might be suitable as another alternative in the already harmfully and unnecessarily flooded market of Netbook operating systems. But no firm should entertain using ChromeOS to prepare content.

Re:no, that's not what it's for (4, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430530)

And why is it impossible to solve the privacy issues in the long run? The way I look at it, if the economic benefits of the "cloud" model are good enough, it's only a matter of time until the other issues are solved over time. Consider checks as an example of this idea. Initially, they seem retarded (I'm going to give you this little piece of paper which is a promise from me to you that my bank will give you this amount of gold if you go there to call on it). Stupid. However, when you consider that the same innovation (banks and checks) allowed you to draw on your account from anywhere that bank had a branch, and enabled you to perform large transactions without having to carry all of your gold with you all of the time, it is obvious that the transactions enabled by the innovation are valuable enough on average to outweigh the risks inherent in the system. Even today there is a tremendous amount of check fraud, but by god, we use them like there is no tomorrow. Why? because without them (and their equivalent financial instruments) our modern society could not exist.

The new "store everything somewhere else and access it from anywhere" model has very similar risks, but also very similar benefits. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the old model in many ways and will, over time, enable valuable use cases that we have not even imagined yet.

so, returning to my original question, why can't we solve these concerns in the long run? Because if it's not impossible, it is simply inevitable.

Compete with Windows?! (5, Insightful)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430244)

> Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows.

Sorry, where does it say that they are aiming to compete with Windows, because it doesn't mention windows in TFA. They've never claimed to try and do that - they're targetting a completely different market. Chome OS is just a browser than boot up with no host operating system. Windows IS an entire operating system.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (0)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430300)

> Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows.

Sorry, where does it say that they are aiming to compete with Windows, because it doesn't mention windows in TFA.

They are ditching windows internally, according to a recent article here, and now they're launching something they can use instead. Sounds like an act of OS war to me.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (2, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430438)

How do you expect anyone to do any work on Chrome OS? That recent article said that they are using Linux or OSX in place of Windows, not Chrome OS. At this point in time, Chrome OS is only really useful for anything that a browser can do. That is a lot of stuff these days, but there are still some apps that people will need a full OS for - for example proper 3D gaming, creating art/music, or doing pretty much any kind of software development.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430698)

What about standard office productivity tasks? What percentage of the world's windows computers do you think sit on people's desks at work? That's where the real money is anyway. Sure there will be certain applications for which the browser is just not a good substitute for a client application but do those applications cover the vast majority of use cases?

Re:Compete with Windows?! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430846)

You could use it for office productivity tasks for bog standard office workers sure, but then all your company's private data is being held on a 3rd party server - which doesn't seem like something most bosses would want.

I think eventually browsers/Chrome OS probably will be able to fulfil all the requirements of a "real" OS (though probably in a rather roundabout, inefficient manner), but yes, we haven't reached that point yet.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430914)

But if the adoption rates for Google Apps (e-mail service specifically) are any indication, we're getting there, and faster than some people think. E-Mail is a highly sensitive service all things considered from a data security perspective, but companies have already proven surprisingly willing to migrate to hosted third party services -- even before the emergence of Google Apps (lots of hosted exchange providers out there). Sure not many big firms have done it, but an increasing number of large universities have. Large universities are not that unlike large companies (at least as far as data security goes, the e-mail accounts of school or university staff members are filled with all kinds of sensitive information about students among other things).

I agree with you, we are not there yet. But in the not too distant future...

Re:Compete with Windows?! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430952)

At this point in time

We are living in interesting times.

I didn't say "Google has won the OS war", I said they're starting one. Microsoft has the Maginot wall, well established and unshakable, and Google has the Highway and high-speed tanks.

The thing is, right now it's 1939 and you're telling me "they only have tanks and highways at this point in time" and I think that in five years' time they'll have stuff that you wouldn't believe [wikipedia.org] because you're too focused on how things are at this point in time.

P.S. I'm only comparing Google to Nazis in term of shininess of tech, not in morals or values. 'cause they may have been murderous maniacs, but DAMN they had cool toys.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430458)

They are replacing Windows with Mac OS X or Linux, but not Chrome OS.

Re:Compete with Windows?! (1)

mcn (112855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430910)

I really think this is just GNU/Linux with a Chrome-like GUI slapped on it... And it looks so basic...

If Google can make it as comprehensive as "Aqua GUI + Mac OS X", and run on PCs and notebooks, not just netbooks, then it could potentially rival Windows and even OS X too...

Isn't this illegal? (1, Flamebait)

thelanranger (1436097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430268)

Wasn't microsoft sued for integrating their browser into their operating system and LOST? This sounds like a double standard to me.......

Re:Isn't this illegal? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430418)

The act of integration with the sole purpose of killing Netscape was what they got sued for. They leveraged their monopoly on Windows to kill a competitor in the browser wars.

Re:Isn't this illegal? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430422)

MS was not sued simply for integrating IE with Windows. They were sued because they were using their near monopoly on OSes to gain marketshare in the browser space by distributing IE for free as a bundle with their OS. Netscape didn't have a near monopoly in the OS market, so there was no way they could compete.

However, Google is a minority player in both the browser and OS markets. If they choose to bundle them together, neither provides all that much more leverage to the other, and certainly provides little in terms of barriers to entry for competition.

Re:Isn't this illegal? (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430954)

Microsoft was also refusing to allow OEMs to install any other browser on the desktop and even for awhile on the system at all. It wasn't just that Microsoft was giving away a browser. It was that Microsoft was preventing other browsers from even being installed by default by system makers. You could download it after you got your PC, but Microsoft didn't want another browser to show up on your desktop or system when you booted it up for the first time.

That was one of the many problems that Microsoft got busted for. Microsoft also got busted for saying that IE was part of the OS and not an add on that could be removed or replaced. They screwed that demo up right in front a of a judge and were yelled at in court for it.

Then there was the whole EU monopoly suit that was over the browser and all kinds of other stuff. Both the US and the EU eventually made Microsoft open up a lot of their protocols and file formats so that everyone could inter-operate and compete somewhat with them.

I am guessing that most people here either didn't follow the trial or forgot what the whole thing was about.

Re:Isn't this illegal? (-1, Redundant)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430478)

No they were sued for having a monopoly and tying a webbrowser to the Windows OS for free while webbrowsers where at that time not included with operating systems and definately not free of charge and in any way not fsck-standards-compliant.

Troll harder elsewhere

Yawn. (0, Redundant)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430364)

I've played around with ChromeOS on a virtual machine and it sucks. It's an OS for accessing Google apps and the web. Nothing else. Great if that's all You need, but I need a bit more.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430564)

This will be great on low powered netbooks and other such devices. I know I'll be installing it on my
Acer Aspire ONE. (Assuming it doesn't completely suck, that is!)

Maserati: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430610)

I've played around with Maseratis, and they suck. It's a vehicle for accessing the roads. Nothing else. Great if that's all You need, but I need a bit more, like hauling lumber and pulling other vehicles out of ditches.

Re:Yawn. (1)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430616)

I've played around with ChromeOS on a virtual machine and it sucks.

Two thoughts spring to mind:

1. you're not in the target demographic

2. unless you have invented time travel, you're not using the OS that will ship in the Fall

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430746)

Well riddle me this: I was using Ubuntu 10.04 a good three months before it shipped. Impossible, no?

Mumble mumble, final release, mumble mumble alpha and beta releases, mumble mumble mumble.

Re:Yawn. (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431032)

I've played around with ChromeOS on a virtual machine and it sucks. It's an OS for accessing Google apps and the web. Nothing else. Great if that's all You need, but I need a bit more.

There I was, the subject and mood were right. The girl agreed with me on ChomeOS -sort of anyway- and I was working my way over her shoulder towards her back and trying to undo her bra.

Then you come along telling ChomeOS sucks and all I get now is the cold shoulder and a disturbed, alarmed look.

Buddy, I'd almost made it.What a party pooper you are. Sheesh!

Love the security aspects. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430500)

From a security point of view Chrome OS is very interesting. I also like the efforts spent on keeping the user out of managing and nursing the OS and make it tend its own business, letting the user work on the computer instead of playing it-expert.

If its going to be even remotely as good as Android i think we can have a winner here.

nice try google (4, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430526)

if they want my windows, they're going to have to pry it out of my warm, living, delicately moisturized hands

What I want (5, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430568)

What I want is the ability to save my browser session back to google somehow "in the cloud" or whatever so that I can close my browser on one computer, start up a generic copy of chrome somewhere else, login, and get my entire session restored. If that happened the whole system would just become much more useful, particularly if you are in a landscape littered with what are effectively thin terminals. Imagine that kind of functionality with a mobile device like the iPad or something (ignoring all of the limitations that exist today). Close out on my desktop, transfer to my portable device, go to meetings and w/e without missing a beat or having to take the time to open things on one device that I was already interacting with on another.

Re:What I want (2, Informative)

Joeseph64 (1538923) | more than 3 years ago | (#32431066)

Although it looks like there's a few more steps in this implementation than you'd like, Android has started doing this with Froyo. Here's the Engadget article [engadget.com] that demonstrates pushing links from your desktop onto your Android phone.

Of course, this misses the "without missing a beat" part of your solution, but it's a start.

Did anyone else read the titles as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430614)

Google's Chrome OS to Launch In Fail ?

Re:Did anyone else read the titles as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32431068)

Would anyone else like an autofilter to filter out the bullshit "Did anyone else read this title as..." posts, which are very rarely funny and usually so contrived as to be painful?

Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32430644)

Will it run my games?
Y/N

Will it run them reliably, effecivly and as table as Windows 7?
Y/N

will it have support, patching, ease of use and compatibility with 3d party aspects? (printers for example)
Y/N

if N to any... thanks, i'll stick to windows.

i use my desktop for Gaming, Browsing, and my job (web development) if it hamper me from doing any of the 3 effecivly, or less effecivly then windows 7.... i'll stick to windows. which i also have support with. most people will in fact. (ps: i use chrome as my main personal browser... love it)

Re:Games (2, Insightful)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430712)

Will it run my games? Y/N

Will it run them reliably, effecivly and as table as Windows 7? Y/N

will it have support, patching, ease of use and compatibility with 3d party aspects? (printers for example) Y/N

if N to any... thanks, i'll stick to windows.

Will the iPad do those? Because that's what this thing is, essentially - an OS for making an iPad-alike.

Re:Games (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430924)

> Will it run my games?
N

> Will it run them reliably, effecivly and as table as Windows 7?
Only if you install it on a net-table. (Patent that concept!)

> will it have support, patching, ease of use and compatibility with 3d party aspects? (printers for example)
Probably not. It's an OS for dummies we are talking about, so patching it will probably require going into dos command line and burning several DVD each time a bug is found.

No thanks (3, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#32430744)

First Google begins by tracking everything you search for. Then, with their browser, they want to track everywhere you go on the internet. Now, with their operating system, they want to track everything you do, period.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...