Google Chrome OS

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Interesting stuff. Official post, PC World.

It's an entire OS stack, not just a browser -- it runs on the bare metal on any machine, from a low-end netbook upwards. But it appears to be optimised around being a web browser first, foremost, and perhaps even only -- "the web is the platform", Google say, and if you write a webapp for it, that webapp will also run on normal OSs via their web browsers. Somewhere underneath is Linux, unsurprisingly.

Quote:

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.

Google Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android. Android was designed from the beginning to work across a variety of devices from phones to set-top boxes to netbooks. Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems. While there are areas where Google Chrome OS and Android overlap, we believe choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google.

myp · **Posted:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:52

Interesting, but web-based apps only? Hmmm.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

I think this is going to seriously challenge the Linux builds you usually find on netbooks. Interesting stuff.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:26

Man, I love Google. They have the balls to chase interesting ideas without completely fucking them up in managerial nightmares.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

myp wrote:

Interesting, but web-based apps only? Hmmm.

Google Apps currently has most of the things you'd ever need, and they're all usable in a browser. There's a full office suite, RSS reader, GMail, web browser, etc. It's every bit as powerful as the Fisher-Price Linux I have on my mini Acer.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Jonarob wrote:

I think this is going to seriously challenge the Linux builds you usually find on netbooks. Interesting stuff.

Devil's Advocaat: why though? It's not out until 2H2010 -- what on earth are they doing that takes that long? I mean, Linux + minimal XWindow layer + web browser isn't exactly cutting edge.

In the mobile space, the world was ready for a really good Linux distro. There was very little off-the-shelf stuff a mobile phone maker could use, and a lot of work required in getting a Linux OS to run a phone. Android therefore, rightly, made a splash.

But there are several very good Linux distros aimed at netbooks, and judging by the fact that most netbooks still sell with Windows on, people don't want them. Maybe it's purely a question of branding and the Google brand name can sway people. That still doesn't explain why Google want to take another year and half to do this though.

So, I am left questioning what they think they are trying to achieve. They're smart guys. I think there's something more to this than meets the eye.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

"All web-based applications will automatically work"

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Flex? Air? Silverlight? ActiveX?!

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Craster wrote:

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Flex? Air? Silverlight? ActiveX?!

Everything except ActiveX on that list works on Linux, and ActiveX is totally tied to IE/Windows anyway.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

Maybe they mean web as in web standards.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Jonarob wrote:

I think this is going to seriously challenge the Linux builds you usually find on netbooks. Interesting stuff.

Devil's Advocaat: why though? It's not out until 2H2010 -- what on earth are they doing that takes that long? I mean, Linux + minimal XWindow layer + web browser isn't exactly cutting edge.

In the mobile space, the world was ready for a really good Linux distro. There was very little off-the-shelf stuff a mobile phone maker could use, and a lot of work required in getting a Linux OS to run a phone. Android therefore, rightly, made a splash.

But there are several very good Linux distros aimed at netbooks, and judging by the fact that most netbooks still sell with Windows on, people don't want them. Maybe it's purely a question of branding and the Google brand name can sway people. That still doesn't explain why Google want to take another year and half to do this though.

So, I am left questioning what they think they are trying to achieve. They're smart guys. I think there's something more to this than meets the eye.

There's always more than they're letting on! And, of course, it's never about what's better, it's about what people know and trust, which is why Windows XP still comes on many netbooks when Linux is much better suited. I think Google are banking on a distribution deal with Acer or Dell or whoever, and people choosing them because of brand familiarity and trust.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Craster wrote:

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Flex? Air? Silverlight? ActiveX?!

Everything except ActiveX on that list works on Linux, and ActiveX is totally tied to IE/Windows anyway.

Still a silly thing to put in a press release. What about my web application that I've written that doesn't work because I did it wrong? Will that automatically work?

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Craster wrote:

Still a silly thing to put in a press release. What about my web application that I've written that doesn't work because I did it wrong? Will that automatically work?

You're just being awkward now. If it doesn't work on your own browser, I think it's fair enough it doesn't work on their's. I'd argue that the most useful definition of "web app" includes the concept of being cross platform, and that as such, yes, any web app that currently runs on Linux/OSX/Windows in Safari/Firefox/Chrome/IE is going to also run on this new thing.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Oh, I'm being awkward, but he didn't say "all current web and RIA technologies are supported", he said "All web-based applications will automatically work", which is silly.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Craster wrote:

Oh, I'm being awkward, but he didn't say "all current web and RIA technologies are supported", he said "All web-based applications will automatically work", which is silly.

Bah. Well, in the modern web 2.0 world where informal blog entries can stand in for press releases, poorly chosen grammar owns j00.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:49

Craster wrote:

Oh, I'm being awkward, but he didn't say "all current web and RIA technologies are supported", he said "All web-based applications will automatically work", which is silly.

Maybe that's why it's taking so long?

Plissken · **Posted:** Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:00

The reason Windows is on netbooks is aggressive work by Microsoft, combined with stupidity on behalf of the netbook manufacturers.

The latter have decided to ditch everything that made the Asus Eee PC so great and turn netbooks into mini-laptops. Which means Windows. Combined with MS cutting their pricing for those machines (while stipulating a 1Gb memory limit) and there is now little between your £300 netbook and your £350 laptop.

Oh, and I also blame nerds.

Blucey · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1975

Hmmm... so I'm there thinking all this Google shite can go away quickly, thanks, and then just this very evening I'm helping my very non-IT mate out with his CV (over the phone). I didn't bother putting Office on my PC during my last install so I had to hunt around for the disc and do all that. Ten mins later I'm good to go.

He talked, I typed. Eventually I sent him the .doc but he couldn't open it because they apparently don't put Office on cheap laptops or something. So I pasted it all into Google Docs and gave him the link.

Sorted. No telling someone how to install Office (or indeed anything).

They need to come up with GoogleMAME for this to be fully good though.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

It's slicker than that; if he was using Gmail to receive the .doc file, he'd have had a "open this using Google Documents" link next to the attachment. You wouldn't even have had to put it in Google Docs your end.

TheVision · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:12

Bluce_Ree wrote:

They need to come up with GoogleMAME for this to be fully good though.

I imagine this would be the same as MAME except all the games would actually work rather than new revisions knocking out more and more games.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:21

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

It's slicker than that; if he was using Gmail to receive the .doc file, he'd have had a "open this using Google Documents" link next to the attachment. You wouldn't even have had to put it in Google Docs your end.

It has a habit of looking a bit gash, though.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:22

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

It's slicker than that; if he was using Gmail to receive the .doc file, he'd have had a "open this using Google Documents" link next to the attachment. You wouldn't even have had to put it in Google Docs your end.

I find when I get a PDF attachment, it's often quicker and easier to use "open with google docs" rather than wait for it to download, then wait for the Adobe reader to open, then possibly freeze the browser, or whatever.

Which, when you think about it, is mad.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:23

kalmar wrote:

Adobe reader

http://www.techiequest.com/foxit-reader ... -software/

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Grim... wrote:

It has a habit of looking a bit gash, though.

There is that. Google Docs is still someway behind OpenOffice, I find, and that's far from perfect.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26

Grim... wrote:

kalmar wrote:

Adobe reader

http://www.techiequest.com/foxit-reader ... -software/

Work PC innit. At home it's a bit better because they open in Preview.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Grim... wrote:

It has a habit of looking a bit gash, though.

There is that. Google Docs is still someway behind OpenOffice, I find, and that's far from perfect.

OpenOffice's word processing software is terrible. Well, it's okay until you need to save formatting in an RTF document, at which point it just breaks without telling you, which wouldn't matter if that wasn't the standard format for manuscripts etc.

GAH!

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

I don't blame it for that. RTF is one of the worst formats ever conceived, it's truly hideous to work with and it should die in a fire. You'll see all sorts of rendering bugs when using it to round-trip between versions of Word, let alone getting something else involved.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Of course, the funniest thing about Google Chrome OS is that it's the very absolute definition of an OS bundling a heavily integrated proprietary browser...

myp · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 15:03

Andrew Orlowski really is a berk.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/08 ... hrome_war/

romanista · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 15:09

kalmar wrote:

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

It's slicker than that; if he was using Gmail to receive the .doc file, he'd have had a "open this using Google Documents" link next to the attachment. You wouldn't even have had to put it in Google Docs your end.

I find when I get a PDF attachment, it's often quicker and easier to use "open with google docs" rather than wait for it to download, then wait for the Adobe reader to open, then possibly freeze the browser, or whatever.

Which, when you think about it, is mad.

spent an hour explaining my in-laws explaining to open an pdf document (problem was nbobody called it .pdf grrrr

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Eric Schmidt (Google CEO and non-executive Apple director) may have to resign Apple board of directors.

John Gruber (daringfireball.net) has a good writeup, including a sensible take on why this probably isn't just another Linux.

The writeup by FakeSteveJobs is funnier though:

Quote:

If you ask me, Google is getting a little nutty about the Borg and it's starting to show. They're starting to look like the new Scott McNealy. Remember him? Ran a company called Sun, which had a great little business going until McNealy became obsessed with Gates and started doing things like paying millions of dollars to buy StarOffice so he could get into that booming free software business.
...
Point three: They're aiming this OS (or as we call it, "POS") at netbooks, at least at first, and in case you hadn't noticed, the netbook market is fucking tiny and will remain so forever. According to IDC, there were 11 million netbooks sold last year, and by 2013 that figure will hit 39 million. The market for PCs and laptops will be 10 times that size -- literally -- at 400 million units. Smartphones will be over 300 million units. So, um, you guys at Google want to have a dog fight with Microsoft to get a few points of that market? Go have fun. Seriously. Knock yourself out. Frankly, if the entire netbook market caught fire, I wouldn't piss on it to put it out. But that's just me.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

myp wrote:

Andrew Orlowski really is a berk.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/08 ... hrome_war/

Huh? He's trying to be really profound, offering an insightful look on the situation, but completely misses. What the hell has it got to do with desktop operating systems? Google are under no illusions that they're going to be challenging Microsoft for a place on desktop PCs. What a bollocks article.

myp · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 15:12

Jonarob wrote:

Huh? He's trying to be really profound, offering an insightful look on the situation, but completely misses. What the hell has it got to do with desktop operating systems? Google are under no illusions that they're going to be challenging Microsoft for a place on desktop PCs. What a bollocks article.

On the flipside, he really pissed off Paul Carr about Twitter, so... *shrugs*

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Watching Orlowski and Carr flame war is like watching the 100m in the special olympics though.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

Hehe, we got a link to the Paul Carr thing? Like two paralytics drowning in a pool together I imagine.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Jonarob wrote:

Google are under no illusions that they're going to be challenging Microsoft for a place on desktop PCs. What a bollocks article.

Vast areas of the technology reporting media are under that illusion though, unfortunately.

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

The problem with tech journalism is it's full of old folk who haven't grown up with technology, but have had to forcibly learn about it.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

No, the problem with tech journalism is that it's full of relatively young journalists that haven't got a clue about technology, but think that the fact that they're a journalist automatically gives them an opinion of value.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

See this better Reg article about the reporting of Google's Chrome OS announcement:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/09 ... ome_redux/

WTB · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 14497

Craster wrote:

No, the problem with tech journalism is that it's full of relatively young journalists that haven't got a clue about technology, but think that the fact that they're a journalist automatically gives them an opinion of value.

You're reading different sites to me! I was thinking of the BBC, mainly.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

Ah - tech journalism on trendy tech sites and tech journalism in mainstream media are different beasts, admittedly.

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

Craster wrote:

Of course, the funniest thing about Google Chrome OS is that it's the very absolute definition of an OS bundling a heavily integrated proprietary browser...

And of course a search engine by default that has an effective monopoly.

itsallwater · **Posted:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 16:21

ohhh speculation! yeay!

Right here is my tuppence...

Google want online apps to work online and offline. So they create a core system to do that and why not start off in a small market you know you can make a difference in and will* cost less if thing do go tits.

Mobile phone are too small to work from but notebooks are pretty much ok to use as a system if pushed.

Err thats about all that comes to mind on this.... unless they plan to bring back Hitler from the dead and make him mate with Bernie Eckelson... which would be slightly more manic and uncouth.

* might possibly maybe

Be Excellent To Each Other

Google Chrome OS

Who is online