• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Google Chrome OS Webcast

"You won't be able to download Chrome OS on an existing notebook"

Well, that makes it pretty much useless.
 
TechLarry said:
"You won't be able to download Chrome OS on an existing notebook"

Well, that makes it pretty much useless.
Click to expand...

Yep that's the first nail in the coffin already. I'm sure as hell not going to buy a netbook just to get a look at this browser on top the Linux kernel.
 
This internet locked OS is just a way for Google to get in on the mobile broadband business. They want people to get those cell phone like internet services that people get for netbooks. Mobile providers will love this OS because it forces people to buy their service in order to have consistent internet access. Cloud is a bad bad bad idea for personal computing.
 
I think that the big question is, "Where is the niche for this?"
If you look at linux-based netbooks, they were never much cheaper than their Windows counterpart, and the nice little bonuses that they provided were never really seen as worth the savings versus the versatility of a windows OS.

I can see these being used for corporate client kiosks of some kind. Like the laptops that Circuit City employees used to carry around just before they closed, used as a portal for accessing stock levels and contacting the warehouse to get a TV.

While simple, I just cannot see a good reason for all of the compromises and limitations one makes to get that simplicity.

After all, what about watching movies off of a DVD, or listening to a music CD? Or ripping them for storage and use later on the system?
 
TechLarry said:
"You won't be able to download Chrome OS on an existing notebook"
Click to expand...

Epic fail on Google's part. Most of the buzz about this was from geeks who wanted to do exactly that.

Oh well, its not like we need another crappy Linux distro anyway.
 
They said they were running it on a "off the shelf" eepc for the demo. Sounded like you could go grab it and put it on any netbook with a solid state HHD. (that had matching hardware to there supported list)

No?
 
Modred189 said:
I think that the big question is, "Where is the niche for this?"
If you look at linux-based netbooks, they were never much cheaper than their Windows counterpart, and the nice little bonuses that they provided were never really seen as worth the savings versus the versatility of a windows OS.

I can see these being used for corporate client kiosks of some kind. Like the laptops that Circuit City employees used to carry around just before they closed, used as a portal for accessing stock levels and contacting the warehouse to get a TV.

While simple, I just cannot see a good reason for all of the compromises and limitations one makes to get that simplicity.

After all, what about watching movies off of a DVD, or listening to a music CD? Or ripping them for storage and use later on the system?
Click to expand...

Exactly, what is the point this so called OS? Cost, not really and if you have to have it always connected that has potential costs.

Google's stuff usually makes a lot of sense. This makes none.
 
Here are my thoughts

For me it seems more like an attempt to moblin like OS, we need to forget about the desktop for a now.(ChromeOS = netbook Only OS), for me the OS needs a way to cache offline work to re-sync later.(gears?).

local files playback and interactivity should be considered, as well as mechanical drivers support.

it seems a good idea, but still, needs tons of work...


WG.
 
The simple fact is that the OS is designed to get you doing what google want you to do, I tend to think people get a bit to gooey eyed with Google often forgetting they are a profit driven company that has done things not that different to MS.
 
phide said:
YouTube/Hulu/Pandora/Zune.net/Last.fm/imeem/etc.


Photoshop.com.
Click to expand...

I want to watch MY content, not stream other content at exorbitant rates over wireless connection. Certainly not pay those rates to edit my own photos that exist on my own storage.

Any computing type device that becomes useless when offline is useless to me.

I am not interested in buying a portable web browser unless it comes with free internet.

Seriously, you have to be a world class idiot to spend money on wireless bandwidth to do tasks that could be done locally on the machine for free.
 
You know, they mentioned that all of the user's data is synced back to the cloud. Is that the entire 10's of gigabytes of data form the SSD? i.e., photos, music, movies etc?
 
Snowdog said:
Any computing type device that becomes useless when offline is useless to me.
Click to expand...

This is the 64 thousand dollar question that will determine the NATURE of cloud computing. I believe that cloud is inevitable and indeed we are already there to some extent. But I think its ultimate implementation and whether or not it will turn the client into a dumb terminal are far from settled.

We came down this road a decade ago when it was called thin client computing and that didn't turn out so hot. It ultimately boils down to cost. Cloud apps are pretty cheap. Cloud storage not so much and that 512 kps upload speed ain't going to cut it,

Right now cloud storage needs to become about 100 times cheaper and connections about 100 times faster, at in places like the US.
 
Few things:

A) Google is clearly trying to say they are no interested in competing with Microsoft or Apple in General OS market. They emphasize the need for a secondary OS to make sure people understand that they have no intention of going after Microsoft or Apple's market (which would be pointless afterall). By calling it a secondary OS, they avoid the talk about the whole marketshare things and the Apps available by claiming they are in an entirely different market. Smart decision on Google's part

B) Whatever Chrome OS does can be done on a stripped down version of Windows or OSX. If there is a need, both Apple and Microsoft could create a version of their OS with their respective browsers as the main app (Safari and IE) and release it to the market

Overall it feels like Google is trying to create a market and dominate it in that respect. While it is important to be a visionary especially in this industry, what they have chosen to compete in is something that can be replicated easily by Apple and Microsoft but not the other way around. Microsoft has a OS, web apps (Hotmail, Calendar, My Phone, Bing). Apple has a OS, they have extensive experience by now in mobile OS as well and they could create an online infrastructure if they need to

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I think it'll be a failure but I could be wrong
 
What is the speed of most peoples internet connection? will be nice to have 1994 hard drive speed again. and rely on ISP, have to be online all the time, and pay and pay forever to use dummied down apps.
 
WAKASHIZuMa said:
Few things:

A) Google is clearly trying to say they are no interested in competing with Microsoft or Apple in General OS market. They emphasize the need for a secondary OS to make sure people understand that they have no intention of going after Microsoft or Apple's market (which would be pointless afterall). By calling it a secondary OS, they avoid the talk about the whole marketshare things and the Apps available by claiming they are in an entirely different market. Smart decision on Google's part

B) Whatever Chrome OS does can be done on a stripped down version of Windows or OSX. If there is a need, both Apple and Microsoft could create a version of their OS with their respective browsers as the main app (Safari and IE) and release it to the market

Overall it feels like Google is trying to create a market and dominate it in that respect. While it is important to be a visionary especially in this industry, what they have chosen to compete in is something that can be replicated easily by Apple and Microsoft but not the other way around. Microsoft has a OS, web apps (Hotmail, Calendar, My Phone, Bing). Apple has a OS, they have extensive experience by now in mobile OS as well and they could create an online infrastructure if they need to

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I think it'll be a failure but I could be wrong
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable analysis of the situation, but you can get cheap netbooks now with a Chrome browser and a WHOLE lot more. So I ask, what is the point? One could say better security and more stability being a nothing OS, and that is a good selling point, if you're a complete tech idiot, which a lot of people are.

I could see this being sold to people who just want something simple and no worry of malware.
 
heatlesssun said:
This is a reasonable analysis of the situation, but you can get cheap netbooks now with a Chrome browser and a WHOLE lot more. So I ask, what is the point? One could say better security and more stability being a nothing OS, and that is a good selling point, if you're a complete tech idiot, which a lot of people are.

I could see this being sold to people who just want something simple and no worry of malware.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this concept is useless; far from it. I see it as a bigger version of a smartphone where an average bandwidth allows you to do enough over the web to get over basic functions

My point is about the success of this product. This OS is something that can be done easily by Apple or Microsoft if they intend to do so (In fact, Apple's rumored Tablet might be something close) and if they feel threatened by Chrome OS. Both of these companies have a working OS that are installed on millions of computers worldwide. They have many APIs available and many developers to support their platform (or they can do it the Google way with no apps)

Google knows very clearly that they have no chance of winning over Microsoft or Apple's market which is general OS hence they have decided to create a different market and compete in that which is smart and good. The problem is that this market can be easily entered and dominated by Apple and Microsoft

PS: I should have proof read my previous post. Full of grammar errors! fail!
 
WAKASHIZuMa said:
I'm not saying this concept is useless; far from it. I see it as a bigger version of a smartphone where an average bandwidth allows you to do enough over the web to get over basic functions

My point is about the success of this product. This OS is something that can be done easily by Apple or Microsoft if they intend to do so (In fact, Apple's rumored Tablet might be something close) and if they feel threatened by Chrome OS. Both of these companies have a working OS that are installed on millions of computers worldwide. They have many APIs available and many developers to support their platform (or they can do it the Google way with no apps)

Google knows very clearly that they have no chance of winning over Microsoft or Apple's market which is general OS hence they have decided to create a different market and compete in that which is smart and good. The problem is that this market can be easily entered and dominated by Apple and Microsoft

PS: I should have proof read my previous post. Full of grammar errors! fail!
Click to expand...

I was basically agreeing with you. But this "new" market, I just don't see it, or at least I don't see where there is a need that hasn't been addressed long ago. Couldn't I just pick up and Windows 7 netbook TODAY, install the Chrome browser and have the SAME thing? In fact if all I did was stick to cloud stuff and didn't run local apps, I wouldn't even have to worry much about malware, which IS a benefit of the Chrome OS.
 
heatlesssun said:
I was basically agreeing with you. But this "new" market, I just don't see it, or at least I don't see where there is a need that hasn't been addressed long ago. Couldn't I just pick up and Windows 7 netbook TODAY, install the Chrome browser and have the SAME thing? In fact if all I did was stick to cloud stuff and didn't run local apps, I wouldn't even have to worry much about malware, which IS a benefit of the Chrome OS.
Click to expand...

The benefit is primarily for Google rather than customers :p. I dont see a point of it either; Google might be as well integrate all their services into their browser and install that on a desktop with any OS

Google is exapnding and so they have decided to enter any area they can. They have web apps, search and mobile OS so now they think it's time to go for the ultimate piece of software installed on a computer : The OS!

While I can see why they would make this move (their chief competitors Apple and Microsoft both have their own OS) I dont think it is a smart one hence the whole need for a "new market" to compete in

Chrome OS could be an instant hit; or it could cost Google billions to finally turn a profit (like Xbox brand for Microsoft) or it could fail all together. I'd go with the latter
 
I agree, I cannot see any market here that has not already been claimed. Android succeeded because there is still a WHOLE TON of growth left in the mobile market in terms of the OS.

But computers? You better have a darn good gimick to pitch if you want to break in...

And not to be too contrary or beg for a flamewar, but the linux underpinnings don't bode well for ChromeOS. I would rather it had been a new start from the ground up...
 
Snowdog said:
I want to watch MY content, not stream other content at exorbitant rates over wireless connection. Certainly not pay those rates to edit my own photos that exist on my own storage.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about wireless rates? You're adding a dimension to the argument that ordinarily doesn't come into play unless you're on an airplane or if you're using some sort of phone network adapter and a pay-per-byte plan for your wireless access. You're assuming a lot here.

Snowdog said:
Any computing type device that becomes useless when offline is useless to me.
Click to expand...
But not necessarily useless to others. That's the point here.

Snowdog said:
Seriously, you have to be a world class idiot to spend money on wireless bandwidth to do tasks that could be done locally on the machine for free.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't why you're bringing up the concept of paying for "wireless bandwidth" as an argument against cloud computing as a whole. Chrome OS itself has nothing to do with potential wireless bandwidth costs.
 
phide said:
Again, I don't why you're bringing up the concept of paying for "wireless bandwidth" as an argument against cloud computing as a whole. Chrome OS itself has nothing to do with potential wireless bandwidth costs.
Click to expand...

For an always connected OS that's like saying to cost of gas has nothing to do with a car.
 
heatlesssun said:
Actually from what I'm reading it does become useless to EVERYONE when its not connected.
Click to expand...
Not with Gears. You lose a lot of functionality, but not everything.

heatlesssun said:
For an always connected OS that's like saying to cost of gas has nothing to do with a car.
Click to expand...
No, that's a poor analogy. If access to gasoline was often free, it would become much less of an issue.

Quick question I'll pose to you: how often are you paying by the byte for wireless internet access?
 
phide said:
Not with Gears. You lose a lot of functionality, but not everything.


No, that's a poor analogy. If access to gasoline was often free, it would become much less of an issue.

Quick question I'll pose to you: how often are you paying by the byte for wireless internet access?
Click to expand...

Actually, since I have 3 separate Internet connections (cable modem, phone and data cards) I pay a lot more for connectivity than most and more than I do for gas as I work out of the house a lot these. So I am pretty much ALWAYS connected. But it ain't cheap.

Where I live you don't see a lot of free connectivity and even so I'm paranoid. I don't much care to be connected to other peoples networks and having my data and personal information flow, encrypted or not. I'm paranoid and it's why I've not seen a piece of Windows malware on any of my personal machines this decade.

However constant connectivity is becoming a way of life so I won't ding the Chrome OS for this. What I will ding it on though is portability. What if I just want to do something like watch some content or work on a document while I CAN'T be connected like in the car or other moving situation. Yes, there's Gears, but still. I'd still be able to do more on my Windows 7 tablet than this thing. And I can run the Chrome browser on it.

I just don't see the real point of this OS other than giving Google a why to bypass Microsoft and Apple and handing out a Google appliance.



Being 100% connected has a cost to it is all I am saying. Of course that price will vary a lot depending on where you live and what you do.
 
Modred189 said:
Can you play DVD's through a browser?
Click to expand...

Actually you can. I've setup a little Silverlight based web site that takes the contents of a ripped DVD and plays the content through Silverlight. It was just a ten minute hack job I did a while back but I may actually need to work on that some more as a full fledged application.
 
just my 2 cents...

Calling a browser an OS is about like calling a tire an automobile.

GUI's & UI's are merely comparable to an automobile paint job. & there's a helluva difference between a shiny balck Ford Pinto & a shiny black Lambo Countach.

Yeah, might be considered an OS for some rinky dink low-powered handheld or netbook type devices, & I guess you could call that an OS substitute, but outside that environment, I don't see it as a meaningful desktop OS replacement.

Instead of an OS, maybe it should be called just an os.

WTH, merely the trivialization of words.

meh
 
Yeah, I don't really like the idea of a fully web-based OS. Enough data about my usage and habits is already out there in databases - I wouldn't like my every move to happen on an external machine that someone else can have direct access to. Also, there is at least a few times a year where the internet will be down, sometimes for over a day while the network is being maintained - what then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top