Google Drops a Nuclear Bomb on Microsoft. And It's Made of Chrome.

By MG Siegler

Wow. So remember all those whispers about a Google desktop operating system that never seem to go away? You thought they might with the launch of Android, its mobile OS, but they persisted. And for good reason, because it’s real.

In the second half of 2010, Google plans to launch the Google Chrome OS, an operating system designed from the ground up to run the Chrome web browser on netbooks. “It’s our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be,” Google writes tonight on its blog.

But let’s be clear on what this really is. This is Google dropping the mother of bombs on its chief rival, Microsoft. It even says as much in the first paragraph of its post, “However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web.” Yeah, who do you think they mean by that?

And it’s a genius play. So many people are buying netbooks right now, but are running WIndows XP on them. Windows XP is 8 years old. It was built to run on Pentium IIIs and Pentium 4s. Google Chrome OS is built to run on both x86 architecture chips and ARM chips, like the ones increasingly found in netbooks. It is also working with multiple OEMs to get the new OS up and running next year.

Obviously, this Chrome OS will be lightweight and fast just like the browser itself. But also just like the browser, it will be open-sourced. Think Microsoft will be open-sourcing Windows anytime soon?

As Google writes, “We have a lot of work to do, and we’re definitely going to need a lot of help from the open source community to accomplish this vision.” They might as well set up enlistment booths on college campuses for their war against Microsoft.

Google says the software architecture will basically be the current Chrome browser running inside “a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.” So in other words, it basically is the web as an OS. And applications developers will develop for it just as they would on the web. This is similar to the approach Palm has taken with its new webOS for the Palm Pre, but Google notes that any app developed for Google Chrome OS will work in any standards-compliant browser on any OS.

What Google is doing is not recreating a new kind of OS, they’re creating the best way to not need one at all.

So why release this new OS instead of using Android? After all, it has already been successfully ported to netbooks. Google admits that there is some overlap there. But a key difference they don’t mention is the ability to run on the x86 architecture. Android cannot do that, Chrome OS can and will. But more, Google wants to emphasize that Chrome OS is all about the web, whereas Android is about a lot of different things. Including apps that are not standard browser web apps.

But there is a wild card in all of this still for Microsoft: Windows 7. While Windows XP is 8 years old, and Windows Vista is just generally considered to be a bad OS for netbooks, Windows 7 could offer a good netbook experience. And Microsoft had better hope so, or its claim that 96% of netbooks run Windows is going to be very different in a year.

Google plans to release the open source code for Chrome OS later this year ahead of the launch next year. Don’t be surprised if this code drops around the same time as Windows 7. Can’t wait to hear what Microsoft will have to say about all of this.

Original post

Comments

[Mick Weinstein:]

Seems like a threat to Apple as well. One of the reasons people prefer Apples is the lameness of Windows. Most are unaware of or unable to install Linux, but put a Google marketing machine behind a much better Chrome OS and that will surely take share from the more expensive option, Apple.

Jul 08 02:14 AM

[Steven Hansen:]

having used exclusively linux for the last 2 months on a netbook, and doing my graphics and articles for seeking alpha using open source software - i can tell you windows better buy google to survive.

the quality of open source software rivals what most of us are used to. last week, i went back to my old XP and felt the quality of the graphics actually declined - and the OS was less stable.

the problem with non-windows based OS is the drivers. most of your plug-and-play usb crap will not work. without support from your existing hardware manufacturers, you will have to purchase a new computer to take advantage of chrome (or even linux).

Jul 08 02:24 AM

[Charlie J:]

I have to respectfully disagree with Mick about a Linux netbook taking market share from Apple's Macintosh.

I don't think very many people who buy Macs can replace what they do on a Mac with a netbook type computer. Some maybe, but a lot? If all you want to do is use the browser, and maybe some do documents in Word, you can just get a cheap PC, or a netbook.

Something that Apple has always understood is that it's not about the OS, it's about the software that runs on that OS. It remains to be seen if Google understands that. And I'm still a bit skeptical of how much can be done with "cloud computing".

Storing data yes, but how long do you think it will be before I can create a simple animation (Flash) and sophisticated composite graphics (After Effects) and then edit these into HDV video (Final Cut) and render that into a Quicktime movie using software that is running from a remote computer connected via the Internet? For this stuff, my Mac Quad Core isn't as fast as I would like.

A netbook might actually compete more with the iPhone, or Apple's coming tablet (for lack of a better description).

Jul 08 02:37 AM

[dragon10:]

Not really, apple will still dominate the notebook market with their robust OS.


On Jul 08 02:14 AM Mick Weinstein wrote:

> Seems like a threat to Apple as well. One of the reasons people prefer
> Apples is the lameness of Windows. Most are unaware of or unable
> to install Linux, but put a Google marketing machine behind a much
> better Chrome OS and that will surely take share from the more expensive
> option, Apple.

Jul 08 03:16 AM

[Maxe Paul:]

How will this impact on domains like .coms etc? The domain industry is realy struggling at present, will people continue to need a .com domain or similar or are we on the cusp of a new era where domains dont mean what they used to?

Jul 08 03:42 AM

[Lightway:]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here with the "nuclear bomb" hype. The real threat is Google's version of Linux replacing other versions of Linux on netbooks specifically.

Google Chrome browser has shown to be more of a draw for Firefox users than Internet Explorer users.

In any event, the real winner here is consumers, since there will be more competition in the playing field, resulting in better innovation from all parties.

Jul 08 03:46 AM

[Between The...:]

This could put Microsoft in a very painful place in pricing for operating systems. They have enjoyed monopoly power and have used and abused it with the features and pricing they charge. Want remote desktop, a sub 1MB file, to connect to other PCs? Then pay the extra $100 for the top-end Windows Vista distro. Want to buy a PC with XP instead of Vista due to preference? Sorry, forced obsolescence of a perfectly good and popular OS. Even if Windows7 can keep up with Chrome OS on netbooks, MS can't hope to charge even $100 for the license when the hardware is $300. Because the bottom-end pricing will fall out, they will have trouble charging $250 or more for a retail copy of the same OS with only a few extra features. Nothing helps novice users embrace uncertain technology like the Google stamp of approval, and I expect that this will move Linux ever closer to the mainstream.

Jul 08 04:01 AM

[Roger Knights:]

"I'm still a bit skeptical of how much can be done with "cloud computing". "

Me too. I believe Microsoft should respond (or at least seriously consider responding) to the threat of cheap or free cloud applications from Google, and a cheap OS, by offering a software metering option. IOW, users would get Office or Windows free, and then pay-as-they-go, based on their usage rate. If average users paid $1 per week for each of those products, or $8 per month on their credit card bill, they'd hardly notice it, and wouldn't be tempted by "free."

There'd be some leakage from piracy, but those users couldn't be sure of getting their software updates from MS if MS detected possible funny business, so not too many would try it.

Jul 08 04:42 AM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

Microsoft makes boatloads off of it's office which is ancient and not that good. There just isn't much of a choice after people allowed it to monopolize that space. I look forward to when Google or anyone else spawns a Office solution to force Microsoft to actually spend money improving it rather than acting like 1980's software is still good enough for the modern age. When they do look for the end of Windows.

Businesses buy Windows for the office applications, not for anything else. Without them Microsoft can kiss its market goodbye. No one really is endeared to its products whatsoever. We use them because businesses use them. That's all.

Jul 08 04:57 AM

[DarkStealth:]

This only seems useful for the Netbook market, and even then, it's not clear that's a good trade for people. Windows is so successful because of network effects - your PC running Windows is more valuable because your friends run it and you use it both at work & home. You reuse learning on one device & it applies to all. And your same applications work everywhere. Providing what they're branding as an operating system will leave their users without some of the network effect. True, maybe you can run some applications in a web browser, but many of them are imperfect substitutes for Microsoft Office.

It's surprising that Google is branding Linux + a window manager as an operating system. And of course, it's a downgrade for people that already have a PC or laptop. (Gotta play my games...)

Does Google really think they can make money this way, or is this just to spoil Microsoft's revenue from Netbooks?

Jul 08 05:13 AM

[pk de cville:]

If Chrome OS successfully enters the competitive field, it will help defeat the weakening Windows monopoly. It could gather most Linux development into one major dual CPU source. Very disruptive, no?

Result: MS loses billions in netbook and related licensing finally moving towards the oblivion of the dodo.

Don't get too excited. It will take a decade and MS might come up with a clever back to the wall response.

I wonder if MS has a black flag secret project to develop a brand new Unix based variant and introduce it as a Chrome/Mac/iPhone OS competitor. (That would make computer OS's interesting!)

Jul 08 05:47 AM

[kmanm:]

Yes, it is easy for the geeks and nerds to install linux/OS and may run the new chrome OS but the average person doesn't want to do it or have the time to do it. My wife is a prime example. She is an office manager and I suggested to her to consider using start office instead of ms-office software. Her response was big No. Why? Because she and her staff have been using office and they have no desire to change and learn anything new.
It is great news for geeks but the average user doesn't care . It is not like the geeks pay for their OS anyway.

Jul 08 06:52 AM

[LA Tech:]

Forgive me if I Yawn!

Google is attempting to revive the VAPOR WARE game of the 1980's and 90's!

Google hasn't earned a single penny of profit on ANYTHING other than paid search, period!

Given Google's dismal track record in business applications, why would anyone believe that Google will displace MSFT in business applications.

Operating systems are a business application, btw!

Just look what Google did with Postini. Google gutted the revenue, goodwill, and people that made Postini famous within the entire IT population.

Wake me up when Chrome ships, if ever!

Jul 08 09:03 AM

[User 357705:]

Fantastic news! Finally a product that can bring down the beast! I'll be an early adopter!

Jul 08 09:06 AM

[mikedny71:]

Good point. As fast a robust these new system may be the average consumer will not have time to adapt to new protocol. A perfect example is Corporate America. As more efficient as these systems maybe for corporations the reality is the bigger and older companies have invested so much into the layers of Microsoft code that over the years that the man-power and cost of technoogy would be too high to unravel it.People don't like change with a big price especially when that cost is more about the Time it would take to change.
The Google OS will sell better with the geeks and specialized professionals that require flexibility and starting out.

Jul 08 09:24 AM

[donzelion:]

Google's OS runs on Linux; Apple's OS is a thoroughly redesigned Linux-based system; and then there are a host of other Linux-kernels out there...

For the doubters out there - I'm not sure how many ordinary users wil pay $100 - $200 for Microsoft Office + $50-100 for Windows XP on a netbook that costs $300.

For the Microsoft boosters (e.g., LA Tech), (1) MSFT made its money by reselling DOS, a free OS, with an MS wrapper, (2) MSFT only became a juggernaut by profiting from missteps at Apple and IBM, and (3) Windows itself existed primarily as vaporware for close to 5 years (if ever had the "pleasure" of using Windows 2.0 or 3.0, you'd know what I'm talking about) - not one user ever preferred Windows to Apple OS even then, but all liked the fact that the total cost (for OS plus basic office applications) was about half as much.

Jul 08 09:24 AM

[donzelion:]

Corporate America (or Corporate Global for that matter) is cost-adverse, not change-adverse. Every time you change standards, there are a host of other costs involved for a company (few of which apply to tech savvy users who would be most early adopters). That often weighs - but not always - weighs in favor of resisting change.

That said: netbooks are selling to the "non-tech savvy" crowd. The notebook makers mocked them as "little toys" that could never cannibalize sales, and the software makers mock open source alternatives as "little toys." Once upon a time, the steam engine and gunpowder were also little toys (and Microsoft itself was merely peddling a "toy OS" for the fringe niche of "geeks who bought computers for use at home").


On Jul 08 09:24 AM User 443002 wrote:

> Good point. As fast a robust these new system may be the
> average consumer will not have time to adapt to new protocol...
> Google OS will sell better with the geeks and specialized
> professionals that require flexibility and starting out.

Jul 08 09:35 AM

[Lies and Da...:]

> It remains to be seen if Google understands that. And I'm still >a bit skeptical of how much can be done with "cloud computing".
> Storing data yes, but how long do you think it will be before I can
> create a simple animation (Flash) and sophisticated composite >graphics (After Effects) and then edit these into HDV video (Final >Cut) and > render that into a Quicktime movie using software >that is running from a remote computer connected via the >Internet? For this stuff, my Mac Quad Core isn't as fast as I >would like.

It's all about targeting your audience. Google isn't designing this OS for video editing enthusiasts or those of us who enjoy rendering 3d scenes. Google is targeting this OS for 95% of the computer users out there who only check their E-mail, view photos, videos and do some light word processing.
That's where Google Chrome and Google Docs come into play. Google was smart enough to develop their "killer apps" before releasing their OS.

It's all very interesting - back in the 70's and 80's computing resources were expensive. Expert users were given cheap dummy terminals (thin clients) which only served as an interface to the incredibly expensive mainframe in the server room.
In the 90's computing became incredibly cheap. Every user was given more resources then they ever needed.
In the 2000's computing again shifted - now we're seeing more and more people using laptops where size and power are key attributes.
This is where the Google OS fits. A customized OS which supports the core functions needed by the average laptop user.

Jul 08 10:15 AM

[debtacid:]

Yes, change is finally in the wind. Corporate America is tired of being dragged along the pavement by the Microsoft money train. No more need to be forced in to fake upgrades that are based more on MS marketing priorities than actual OS improvement. Looks like Gates got out just in time.

Jul 08 11:40 AM

[User 305589:]

I couldn't care less. And I am amused and a tad worried by the jubilation expressed by quite a number of people about how happy they are that Google will now attempt to wipe out MSFT on the OS battlefield. They better look carefully what they wish for!
For all the hate against MSFT, Google isn't any better, quite the opposite. Their privacy protection is nonexistant. they are the biggest data collectors and spys on the internet. No rules, no regulations. I will never ever install any google software on any of my PCs, notebooks or handys. They offer a terrific search engine and Google earth is a nice application, fine - but that's about it. I will not work on office documents via the web - how could I be sure that the data and information will not end up at places where i don't want them to be?
All the people who - often correctly - criticise Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.

Jul 08 11:51 AM

[coloneldebu...:]

There is very little that a 99% of computer users do that can't be done online. Google Docs and Zoho can more than cover all your office suite needs. There are countless web based email solutions whether is gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc. Even editing photos online is available through Adobe Photoshop Express, Aviary Phoenix, Sumo Paint and several others.

Right now I'm looking at a problem that could be easily solved if the corporate sticks in the mud would allow our users to use something like Google Docs or Zoho. Yes, there is the Office Live add-in which conveniently will not upload an Excel document. Not to mention this is yet another ActiveX piece of garbage that will likely be exploited like anything else involving Internet Explorer. Anyone thinking ActiveX is the pinnacle of Internet development needs to log off their AOL dial-up and go wait on the front porch for the Web Van to show up.

Jul 08 12:08 PM

[MainStreet:]

WOW?? Nuclear bomb? Google can't even keep their Gmail from hanging in their Chrome browser. This Google OS news is a defensive response to MS's new Bing. Since Bing's early June launch, Google is down over 10%.

Jul 08 12:33 PM

[JPDX:]

So what happens when the internet is down, or you are out of range of wireless. I guess your computer or its apps will just not work? I am sure that will not please most of the non-technical users out there. I have not been impressed with Chrome, or Google's graphical layouts and features of their apps so far. They have a long way to go before becoming a player in OS.

Jul 08 12:52 PM

[David Ristau:]

I can not be certain about how great this OS will be. But, Google launched their search engine in a time when no one thought Yahoo could be touched. They launched Chrome in a time when no one thought Firefox or IE could be touched, and it is fastly growing and is the fastest browser. They launched Android when no thought they could touch Apple, and while the Android, out of the three, has struggled compared to Apple. The first line was just released and the second better one comes out soon.

Now, they want an OS. When Microsoft cannot be touched...

My guess is that Google is going to offer a product that in five years will be the norm. You are looking at the new Microsoft and the new, greatest American company.

David Ristau
President, The Oxen Group

theoxengroup.com

Jul 08 01:12 PM

[Respirate:]

Although "nuclear bomb" is over-the-top hyperbole, it got me thinking about security. On one hand, I've found Chrome, the browser, to be not only fast, but also rock solid stable -- most surprising given that it's new. It's also a feat never achieved by Microsoft in anything.

Privacy and security are always concerns when you consider any type of networking. Of even greater concern than privacy in web-centric computing is durability and availability. Despite its robust and redundant structure, the internet links can fail at many places between an individual station and the destination software application sites. Will it be available when you must do something?

Intentional attack is one of multiple vulnerabilities:
This today: "The powerful attack that overwhelmed computers at U.S. and South Korean government agencies for days was even broader than initially realized, also targeting the White House, the Pentagon and the New York Stock Exchange. Other targets of the attack included the National Security Agency, Homeland Security Department, State Department, the Nasdaq stock market ...".

--R

Jul 08 01:24 PM

[Windsun33:]

When I see that it can run apps like Photoshop, Quickbooks, Acrobat, and various other Windows programs I will be impressed.

And if they are going for open source like it seems to imply, I can see it being a major targer for exploits.

Jul 08 01:29 PM

[donzelion:]

User305589 writes: "For all the hate against MSFT, Google isn't any better... I will not work on office documents via the web - how could I be sure that the data and information will not end up at places where i don't want them to be? "

Some people hate computers generally, preferring typewriters.

"Cloud computing" is hardly about making life easier for the average worker (although in some contexts it can). As managers adopt it, they discover that they can monitor actual employee performance in real time - and what's more, assess quality of contributions (rather than reviewing a flurry of email attachments separately).

Microsoft's competing solution involves taking an architecture designed to personalize and decentralize information, then adding more software to "un-decentralize" it (Windows + Office + Sharepoint + Office Server + security apps +...), then paying to do that on each workstation separately (and then paying when the laptop that holds the data gets stolen or the central server gets hacked).

Businesses don't care about the cost of such inherent inefficiency during booms...

Jul 08 01:34 PM

[Daniel Herkes:]

On Jul 08 09:24 AM donzelion wrote:

>Apple's OS is a thoroughly redesigned
> Linux-based system; and then there are a host of other Linux-kernels

OSX is based on BSD not Linux. BSD is/was good too.

Jul 08 01:35 PM

[LaughingTrader:]

Mainstreet said: "This Google OS news is a defensive response to MS's new Bing. Since Bing's early June launch, Google is down over 10%."

This is right on target. Why else would they pre-announce over a year early (it is due sometime in 2010)?

Respirate said: "On one hand, I've found Chrome, the browser, to be not only fast, but also rock solid stable -- most surprising given that it's new. It's also a feat never achieved by Microsoft in anything. "

Hmm, you didn't mention what OS you are running that "rock-solid" Chrome on. If it's Windows, then by implication Windows must also be rock-solid (as it would then be the underpinnings and foundation of Chrome). This, therefore would refute your second sentence. In fact, Microsoft gets bashed repeatedly for the failures and lapses of 3rd party application developers. Every once in a while someone does an uptown job on a Windows application, which should demonstrate how stable Windows actually is, but it never gets noticed or mentioned.

All of that said, I look forward to the competition. As is usually the case when two great companies duke it out, the consumer wins.

Jul 08 01:45 PM

[Josh Kupers...:]

This is a seriously huge deal for Google. GOOG has shown time and again that they can deliver very polished products even in competitive, established domains (GMail, Google Maps). The Operating System market, being controlled by a clueless monopoly as it is, is ripe for attack. This really is a "nuclear bomb" on MSFT, assuming Google does a decent job. As other commenters point out, Google is tailoring specific market segments here -- chiefly "netbook"-type users, who mainly use their computers for web work. But the blog post is perfectly up-front about this intention.

Some random thoughts on this announcement, and possibilities for Google, from the perspective of a Software Dev:

- Supporting ARM processors as the blog post states could make Google OS a very compelling choice for netbook manufacturers. Expect INTC (which essentially has a monopoly right now on netbook processors by virtue of the Atom) and MSFT (which only has the craptastic Win CE running on ARM right now) to both be *very* unhappy about this development.

- The Chrome browser needs better Linux support RFN, if they plan on putting this OS together anytime soon, since Google OS will presumably be heavily based on Linux (it should essentially just be a highly customized Linux distro, unless Google feels like re-inventing *a lot* of OS wheels). Google claims "Google Chrome for Linux is in development* and a team of engineers is working hard to bring it to you as soon as possible.". I can only hope they have some decent builds running internally, or this entire Chrome-based OS is in jeopardy!

- Interesting possibilities for user tracking and data mining based on desktop usage habits will exist. Google will have to tread carefully to alleviate privacy concerns here, but an opt-in system with rewards should work beautifully. Google's bread and butter is advertising dollars, after all.

- The possibilities for application development for Google OS are both intriguing and very much up in the air at this point. Google simply claims "the web is the platform" in their post, but this is terribly incomplete -- there have to be *some* apps (the web browser being one, of course) running locally on the user's machine. Google does a decent job managing their developer APIs for the web, at least (e.g. Google Maps is nicely done), but getting developers on board takes time and "carrots" (e.g. lucrative app store for Apple devs). It'll be interesting to see what kind of carrots Google dangles in front of devs to get apps ported to this device -- or perhaps they'll simply rely on the free software already in the Linux ecosystem without worrying about specifically attracting further tailored applications, or handle everything in-house?

- "Instant On" operating system booting from BIOS ROM, able to browse the web. The Google Blog mentions "start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds" though it's unclear whether they've simply drastically sped up the traditional *nix boot process, or are actually booting from ROM.

- Web browser security is becoming more and more important as average users wake up to the threats online. Google could have a very elegant and secure set-up for Chrome if they're customizing the entire OS around the browser: Chrome could be running under an entire Virtual Machine in non-persistent mode, or something similar to a chroot jail (maybe the newest IE does something vaguely similar.. not sure, haven't used IE in ages).

- Universal logins to any computer running GoogOS, using Google network storage for any needed persistent storage. Presumably Google will offer tight integration of the computer's storage with Google's network storage, which would be very sweet if done properly.

- Desktop widgets like a calendar directly using Google Calendar as the backend would be elegant, lightweight, and network-transparent.

Jul 08 03:03 PM

[Dirtnap:]

I am predicting by 2011, Google servers will become self-aware. They will rename themselves from 'Google' to SkyNet', and begin first-run production on Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alike cyborgs.

On the bright side, this new industry will subsequently pull California out of its economic turmoil into a new age of post-apocalypse.

Jul 08 03:11 PM

[MarkitWacha:]

As a developer, I like the fact that the applications will be web-based. Most applications need a data source, however. It will be interesting to see how Google approaches this problem.

Linux is going mainstream, if this catches on. With desktops and netbooks at prices under $400, everyone everywhere will take a hard look at how to better use them. That could spawn a new 'productivity revolution.' And that is a GOOD THING.

Jul 08 03:44 PM

[Barbossa:]

Two things of note:

1) MSFT makes far more money selling Office than the Windows O/S.

2) Nothing is free.

Jul 08 06:10 PM

[manuel:]

sorry can anyone ansewer me: i read on googles announcement that they are building the system also to make automatic sync, (back up) so that you can accsess your data anywhere, you think this could hurt the memory industry(flash sticks etc.) ?

Jul 08 06:44 PM

[Daniel Herkes:]

You can also do that with the last Ubuntu release 9.04


On Jul 08 06:44 PM manuel wrote:

> sorry can anyone ansewer me: i read on googles announcement that
> they are building the system also to make automatic sync, (back up)
> so that you can accsess your data anywhere, you think this could
> hurt the memory industry(flash sticks etc.) ?

Jul 08 08:07 PM

[bcncv:]

This could be the beginning of an entire shift in the computing industry. Microsoft's largest lever in maintaining their monopoly was by saying "all programs are written for windows, none are written for other OS's".

As more and more functionality has shifted to the web, this is much less important than it used to be. I used to have 50+ programs installed on my PC. Now I have maybe 10. Everything else is web based. And Google has the market power to get those other 10 publishers on board.

I imagine the biggest issue will be compatible external devices like printers, hard drives, cameras, etc. If Chrome OS gets a good response, this will change in the long term, but could cause uptake problems up front.

These are interesting times indeed.

Jul 08 08:44 PM

[upgrayed:]

I don't think the nuclear bomb analogy is overstating the severity of the threat to MS. I read recently that Windows 7 will add $200 to the cost of a normal notebook and manufacturers are already balking. I am a huge Picasa fan and I love Google Docs and Open Office. As long as Android will support those along with ITunes I will give it a try.

Jul 09 12:04 AM

[Ryu Mei Co:]

I have been using Chrome a week ago, and I love it because it is super fast, but there are many website not properly coded to fit the Chrome browser and thus many times the pages looked weird.

Jul 09 03:44 AM

[manuel:]

sorry can anyone ansewer me: i read on googles announcement that they are building the system also to make automatic sync with their servers, (back up) so that you can accsess your data everywhere, you think this could hurt the memory industry(flash sticks etc.) ?

Jul 09 06:35 AM

[FloridaBoy2:]

"I imagine the biggest issue will be compatible external devices like printers, hard drives, cameras, etc. If Chrome OS gets a good response, this will change in the long term, but could cause uptake problems up front."

The average computer user, like me and I am not alone, will not be amused by the above. My computer is a tool not a laboratory for experiments.

Hackers go after IE because of the huge user base. If Chrome replaced IE today the hackers would be all over Chrome. So what would really change? MS is still the big dog and this will force them to innovate...and they will.

Both are huge companies attempting to take market share from each other. Same pie, different slices. BTW, I don't love either company. Google is a huge data miner. That worries me.

Jul 09 06:50 AM

[brewer:]

Nice move, Apple has already taken the high end of the market, now Google is going to swing in and take the low end. That leave MSFT with a lot of IT staffers and some computer gaming enthusiasts.

Jul 09 09:55 AM

[Arthur Hau:]

The only reason why MS Windows has been dominating the PC market is not its efficiency, not its functionality, not its compatibility, ..., but MS's market power to control application developers, hardware manufacturers, end users, ...

A major reasons why Linux can never become a mainstream OS is not because of the technicality involved in its installation (well we do have some very convenient commercial Linux based products, such as Redhat), but because most hardware manufacturers are unwilling to write the drivers for their hardwares on any OS other than Windows. I once saw from some discussion forums that MS has been using some threats as it tactics to "force" manufacturers to always follow its standards and not to write drivers for other OS systems.

Let's face this. If you buy a netbook with Google Chrome OS installed and you want to buy a new model of printer to print out the photos you download from the internet, you will most likely have a serious problem! Your Chrome OS does not allow you to print using your new printer cause it does not include a printer driver that works with Chrome! Well, remember you also have a new scanner, a new webcam, a new PC game, ...

Plus, you can't run your old MS-based programs on your new Chrome-based netbook....

Well, I hate MS all of my life. I even tried to install Linux several times. However, I am not going to support a new OS that does not promise compatibility with all the new hardwares and softwares. Unless Google has a team of people writing drivers and stuff for all new hardwares, I will stick with Windows XP for my netbook. BTW, I am on Windows Vista, a super junk OS, while typing this comment! It sucks, but do I have a choice?

My only choice is to use as many free- and share-wares as possible. I won't spend a buck on any MS trash programs.

Jul 09 09:58 AM

[whpinvest.com:]

I do software application architecture for the banking industry, and ALL the interfaces we develop now are web-based.

Google's Chrome OS fits in perfectly with this trend - its architecture is based entirely around efficiently and securely delivering web applications to users, and its file system appears it will be woven into the cloud.

I am platform agnostic (I don't get involved in the Windows v. Mac v. Linux debate - I just use whatever tool is best for the job), so I can objectively state that I foresee the Chrome OS being a very potent business workstation OS. Microsoft will either have to greatly innovate to compete with the Chrome OS, or perish.

Jul 09 12:25 PM

[whpinvest.com:]

@FloridaBoy2 - have you taken a look at Chrome's security architecture? Processes are sandboxed. It would be very difficult to hack the system, and even if someone did figure out a way in - they wouldn't be able to go anywhere. ... It would be kind of like if a burglar broke into your house only to find themselves stuck in a closet with no doors or windows.

On Jul 09 06:50 AM FloridaBoy2 wrote:

> Hackers go after IE because of the huge user base. If Chrome replaced
> IE today the hackers would be all over Chrome. So what would really
> change?

Jul 09 12:43 PM

[jayminho:]

chrome OS is not the big hit as many say, cloud computing and opensource in the damage. take a look at the openoffice x msoffice situation.
we have entire governamental intitutions adopting it as a standard.
OS ? no.. people will stick to windows.

Jul 09 12:58 PM

[mdhelp:]

Microsoft will be an extremely hard nut to crack, but any attempt to must be a very positive move. Look at Vista and what a bloated, restrictive and expensive product it is.

Jul 09 06:47 PM

[FloridaBoy2:]

I am not an IT type so the architecture would be Greek to me but the sandbox security is great, Why can't MS do that?. I do sometimes use Firefox. I had to get a new computer and it has Vista which has some nice features but the stupid pop ups are awful.

I do remember having peripheral compatibility issues with older versions of Windows but that seems to have been resolved.

Most of us just want an OS that is plug 'n play and secure. It seems that that is asking a lot. :- )

Chrome may be very good but Googles data mining, in principle, pisses me off.


On Jul 09 12:43 PM whpinvest.com wrote:

> @FloridaBoy2 - have you taken a look at Chrome's security architecture?
> Processes are sandboxed. It would be very difficult to hack the system,
> and even if someone did figure out a way in - they wouldn't be able
> to go anywhere. ... It would be kind of like if a burglar broke into
> your house only to find themselves stuck in a closet with no doors
> or windows.
>
> On Jul 09 06:50 AM FloridaBoy2 wrote:

Jul 10 07:22 AM