[-X-]

Quote

Introducing the Google Chrome OS
7/07/2009 09:37:00 PM
It's been an exciting nine months since we launched the Google Chrome browser. Already, over 30 million people use it regularly. We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be.

I personally cant wait. Sounds like a lean, mean, fighting machine unlike the recent bloat from MS(go ahead and flame me ).

Read the rest here...
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/int...-chrome-os.html

[tain]

Lean and mean? Maybe, except for the extra code to track everything you do and report it back to Google. Keep an eye out for a 3rd party "sanitized" version after it gets released.

[chuckr]

-X-, on Jul 8 2009, 02:36 AM, said:

I personally can't wait. Sounds like a lean, mean, fighting machine unlike the recent bloat from MS (go ahead and flame me ).

Good post, -X-

Thanks...

[CoffeeFiend]

tain, on Jul 8 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

Maybe, except for the extra code to track everything you do and report it back to Google.

Exactly my first though. The built-in spyware in Chrome isn't enough for them? Why not make an entire OS out of spyware too! Not only they know everything you search for, they have all your email with gmail, know the locations you search for (maps), the ads you click, the videos you upload and view (youtube), the blogs you read (blogger) and rss feeds (feeburner), have your photos (picasa web album), know pretty much everything you do in your browser (chrome), and they somehow still need MORE? Besides, it's going to be built on top of Linux (extremely poor hardware support, won't run any of the apps I want or need)

You'd have a real hard time coming up with an OS I'd want of less than this.

Besides, some their online services may be OK (search, maps, gmail, youtube too but that was bought and stays as-is, their original video site sucked), but other than that they mostly suck (Google docs is a joke, Picasa is a waste of time, SketchUp... meh) And android isn't exactly scoring big either, with major mobile companies like Nokia not wanting anything to do with it. And it's not like Linux needs yet another desktop environment, to go along with gnome, kde, xfce and several others. Yeah, further fragmentation is definitely what it needs!

[Maleko]

Well, all that needs to be said is "Software Compatibility"

This may be good for people who want cheap netbooks and to get on the Net quick, but for a main stream OS? I think not.

[JedMeister]

I certainly won't be rushing out to download and install this on anything. I'm not a big fan of everything I do online (as mentioned above by CoffeeFiend) belonging to Google (Chrome users, Gmail users etc, have a good read of that EULA! - Its pretty scarey!)

But in the bigger picture I think it'll be a good thing. If the rapid uptake of Chrome is anything to judge by, a Google OS could bring the Linux desktop another step closer to mainstream. I guess to a degree netbooks have somewhat done that.

I'm not sure whether you've tried any Linux distros lately CoffeeFiend but if its been a while you'd be pleasantly surprised, at least on the hardware support front. There are a few things that don't play nice (such as Lexmark printers/all-in-ones) but it has got a lot better in the last year or two. As Linux matures as a desktop OS more hardware manufacturers seem to be offering support, or at least providing info to enthusiasts that are willing to do it. In the arena of older hardware, it might be argued that Linux has better support than Vista! With Google on the scene surely Linux hardware support is only going to get better.

I understand for many users (such as you CoffeeFiend) Linux may not run the apps or hardware a poweruser or professional with a specific set of OS dependent (software or hardware) tools. For others they know their way around Windows and why would they want to change (the same could be argued for changing OS at all), but for the average Joe that uses their PC for email, internet, watching movies, listening to music, working with photos (collating, touching up, printing), document creation/editing, interacting with their mp3/mp4 player and other simple day to day tasks, Linux is a perfectly good solution to that. Especially on older and lower spec hardware!

This post has been edited by JedMeister: 09 July 2009 - 07:06 AM

[CoffeeFiend]

JedMeister, on Jul 9 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

I'm not sure whether you've tried any Linux distros lately CoffeeFiend but if its been a while you'd be pleasantly surprised, at least on the hardware support front.

It's been mere days, and I'm surprised about hardware support for sure -- but not in a good way. It sucked really bad, and they somehow managed to make it worse (something I believed was impossible), even breaking things like Intel video drivers. "Epic Fail" is a brutal understatement here. LOTS of really basic devices (like common video cards) don't work worth s*** -- and that's when drivers exist at all. Linux is bad enough that it sold me into building a new server to run Win 2008 w/ Hyper-V (not cheap).

As for Vista hardware support, all my stuff has worked perfectly from the first day I used it. For the most part, the "vista driver issues" you're talking about is not due to Vista itself but to the switch to x64 many are going through. I had one device without x64 drivers which still worked perfectly fine under Vista x86. Just like it wouldn't work with 64 bit editions of XP or Win 2003 or Win 2008 or Win 7 or Win 2008 R2. There's a lot of those people with ancient pre-XP hardware that like blame their manufacturer's end of support after 10 years onto Vista & Microsoft though.

JedMeister, on Jul 9 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

for email, internet, watching movies, listening to music, working with photos (collating, touching up, printing), document creation/editing, interacting with their mp3/mp4 player and other simple day to day tasks

email wise, most average users know outlook. internet wise, Linux's flash port sucks hard. watching movies? As in no Blu-Ray and DVD playback that's not so intuitive and doesn't work out of the box unlike the Windows OEM box they'd be getting instead? Listening to music? no iTunes or the like (sync'ing to portable devices -- like say, phones, is also a real pain). Working with photos? I hope you're joking. Linux has nothing to offer here (don't even say GIMP, nor F-spot for that matter). Document creation, as in OOo (the feature set of MS Office 4.3 -- a Win 3.1 app, but only slower than MS Office 2007). Add to that the unfamiliar interface, having to search for and then re-learn new apps (often with poor usability and mediocre GUI that's slapped on as an afterthought on top of cmd line tools) for everything and so on -- it's not exactly a great fit even for most "average joes". Everything you said sounds like reasons NOT to use it IMO. The solution that sounds obvious to me for these things (other than Windows) would be OS X + iLife and Aperture. Decent apps that are very usable and with nice & consistent "polish", on a platform that supposedly just works (not stuff breaking with every dist-upgrade)

[JedMeister]

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

It's been mere days, and I'm surprised about hardware support for sure -- but not in a good way. It sucked really bad, and they somehow managed to make it worse (something I believed was impossible), even breaking things like Intel video drivers. "Epic Fail" is a brutal understatement here. LOTS of really basic devices (like common video cards) don't work worth s*** -- and that's when drivers exist at all. Linux is bad enough that it sold me into building a new server to run Win 2008 w/ Hyper-V (not cheap).

Sounds like you've been tainted from your bad run with Linux. Still they must be doing something right as the Linux userbase continues to grow. Linux Desktops have recently reached 1% market share. Which versions have you tried? I have read that there have been problems with Intel graphics support on Ubuntu 9.04 and other distros using newer kernel versions. Apparently versions with a kernel post 2.6.24 struggle with Intel graphics (something to do with the new features of the chips - although there are workarounds to solve crashing problems). I think it is very disappointing (not to mention surprising) that Intel graphics support isn't much better considering they are one of the few (only?) graphics hardware vendors which actively support open source drivers. The versions I have had the most success with are Ubuntu 8.04(.2) LTS (Server & Desktop), PCLinuxOS 2007 and Puppy Linux 4.?. I haven't had any major issues with Ubuntu 8.04 on anything I've installed on (Intel & AMD chips on ASUS, Gigabyte & MSI mobos using Intel, SiS, VIA and nVidia chipsets and VIA and nVidia graphics). One board (ASUS P5NSLI) accepted PCLinuxOS no worries but I had hassles with XP (had to manually set the HUD to even get it to install without BSODing).

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

As for Vista hardware support, all my stuff has worked perfectly from the first day I used it. For the most part, the "vista driver issues" you're talking about is not due to Vista itself but to the switch to x64 many are going through. I had one device without x64 drivers which still worked perfectly fine under Vista x86. Just like it wouldn't work with 64 bit editions of XP or Win 2003 or Win 2008 or Win 7 or Win 2008 R2. There's a lot of those people with ancient pre-XP hardware that like blame their manufacturer's end of support after 10 years onto Vista & Microsoft though.

Glad to hear you've had such a good run with Vista, unfortunately quite a few others haven't (I guess just as you've had problems with Linux and many others haven't). I agree that x64 support has been average with Windows (especially x64 XP/Server2K3). And often with older hardware (32 & 64 bit versions of Vista). Yes it is manufacturers (not MS) refusing to support old hardware (makes good business sense really as they want to sell new hardware, not spend money supporting hardware they sold years ago). But I guess the same could be for Linux, its not the OS's fault, but that of the hardware manufacturers for not supporting it. Anyway, why wouldn't hardware without x64 drivers work on a 32bit Windows system?

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

email wise, most average users know outlook

Sure but Thunderbird or Evolution (which even connects to MS Exchange) are not that different.

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

internet wise, Linux's flash port sucks hard.

It was quite buggy years ago, but I've not noticed any problems for a long time? I remember that even the Windows Firefox/Opera plugin was pretty average a few years ago. I suspect OSX probably had similar problems before Macromedia (Adobe) fixed it.

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

watching movies? As in no Blu-Ray and DVD playback that's not so intuitive and doesn't work out of the box unlike the Windows OEM box they'd be getting instead?

You're comparing Apples and Pears (OEM Windows vs user installed Linux). Not sure about Vista, but XP doesn't have DVD (video) or Blu-Ray (at all AFAIK) support out of the box either (ie without 3rd party codecs/software). I use VLC (on both Linux and XP) and it has no problems playing DVDs for me. Blu-Ray disk playback does have (very) limited support (probably illegal, only works on older Blu-Ray discs and requiring non-noob config hacks) since mid-2007. Disks can be ripped though and there are a number of Linux apps that can play the (unencrypted) content. IMHO it is only a matter of time before on-the-fly support is available (someone will crack it as they did HD-DVD). Besides, not counting PS3s I can count the people I know with a Blu-Ray player on one hand, not exactly Joe average territory! BTW OSX does not support playing Blu-Ray either AFAIK.

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

Listening to music? no iTunes or the like (sync'ing to portable devices -- like say, phones, is also a real pain).

Amarok works fine with my gfriends iPod and my Zen. I've heard Mozilla Songbird works well too (it even has an iTunes skin). Most generic type mp3/mp4s work with no issues (most just connect as generic USB storage device). Phones (that don't connect as generic USB devices) are definitely problematic, but in my experience that's often the case with XP syncing too.

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

Working with photos? I hope you're joking. Linux has nothing to offer here (don't even say GIMP, nor F-spot for that matter).

As I said maybe not for the powerusers or professionals skilled in the use of specific tools. Personally digiKam works fine for me. I'm not sure what the problem with GIMP is - I don't use it but only because it way more powerful than my needs (Photoshop is the same from my perspective - too steep a learning curve for my needs). Also Google Picaso (cringe) runs fine on Linux (the choice of photo editing software for 90% of my friends, customers and associates - despite my advice).

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

Document creation, as in OOo (the feature set of MS Office 4.3 -- a Win 3.1 app, but only slower than MS Office 2007).

Go easy, that's a bit harsh! Load up speed was definitely a problem in v2, but v3.1 is much better. Personally (for my use anyway) I would liken it more to MSO2K3. It also has a number of handy aspects such as native support for a range of file formats such as MSWorks and MSO2k7 file formats and export to pdf natively. Also native file format sizes are far smaller than MSO2K3 (not sure about 2K7?). My work migrated to it (from 2K3) last year and no one has complained about anything missing! There may be features that MSO has that OOo doesn't, but seriously who uses them? No-one I know and certainly not Joe average, he just wants a word processor to type a letter and perhaps a spreadsheet to do his home budget.

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

Add to that the unfamiliar interface

True but on face value, a distro such as PCLinuxOS is as close to XP (probably closer for a very casual user) as Vista. Any new interface involves a learning curve (just ask any staunch XP user what they think of Vista!)

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

having to search for and then re-learn new apps (often with poor usability and mediocre GUI that's slapped on as an afterthought on top of cmd line tools) for everything and so on.

Fair call on clunky GUI front-ends for commandline tools, in the past that has often been the norm. But as the Linux userbase expands, its been getting much better. Besides any new software (regardless of OS) has a learning curve involved. There are also many cross platform apps available that work almost identical regardless of OS (eg Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, OOo, VLC, etc).

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

-- it's not exactly a great fit even for most "average joes". Everything you said sounds like reasons NOT to use it IMO.

I'm not quite clear how that could be but each to their own. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point!

CoffeeFiend, on Jul 10 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

The solution that sounds obvious to me for these things (other than Windows) would be OS X + iLife and Aperture. Decent apps that are very usable and with nice & consistent "polish", on a platform that supposedly just works (not stuff breaking with every dist-upgrade)

Yes the Unix based OSX is very polished and has a lot going for it. Unfortunately the biggest problem with it is the (overpriced IMHO) cost of the hardware that it is attached too. Besides have a go on a netbook with pre-installed Linux, I have an ASUS EeePC and it runs a treat. Does everything a netbook should and in half the time XP does (on the same hardware).

Getting back on topic, most of your points aren't really relevant as this will be a pre-installed/OEM type of installation which will be tailored to the hardware. Therefore all hardware will work no worries.

@-x- Apologies for hijacking your post!

[CoffeeFiend]

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Still they must be doing something right as the Linux userbase continues to grow.

Extremely slowly, yeah. They've been trying to give it away for over a decade. It's not a good sign at all, when more people switch to Macs every month (despite it costing as much as Windows, being just as closed source, and needing overpriced hardware too) then people switch to Linux in an entire year. That they're having such a hard time giving their stuff away while the rests is expensive is definitely NOT a good sign! it clearly show being free just isn't enough. People are definitely willing to pay for something that actually works.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

I have read that there have been problems with Intel graphics support on Ubuntu 9.04 and other distros using newer kernel versions.

And considering it was just about the only video card with stable drivers under Linux... Mind you the card itself sucks, and the drivers are fairly simplistic (e.g. often no OpenGL).

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

considering they are one of the few (only?) graphics hardware vendors which actively support open source drivers.

Not at all. There is an open source driver for ATI cards, and it sucks too. And the ATI folks handed out all the infos required to make your own too. fglrx is a sad joke at best. The closest thing to "stable" and working decently, seems to be older nvidia cards (something I definitely don't want of) only when you're using them with the closed/proprietary drivers.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

unfortunately quite a few others haven't

All modern hardware is well supported by their vendors. There are lots of such claims, along with "not compatible with software" but that's been FUD for the most part -- just see this list.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

But I guess the same could be for Linux, its not the OS's fault, but that of the hardware manufacturers for not supporting it.

Not at all! When I buy the hardware, it comes with a "works with Windows" logo. They're promising me they'll have drivers that work. As for Linux, they made no such claims, and most drivers out there aren't written by them either.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Anyway, why wouldn't hardware without x64 drivers work on a 32bit Windows system?

It works. My ancient hardware (I got rid of a couple months ago) that didn't have x64 drivers still worked perfectly fine under Vista x86 (using the exact same drivers as XP).

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Sure but Thunderbird or Evolution (which even connects to MS Exchange) are not that different.

but not familiar either, and lots of people like familiar and are quickly lost when outside of their familiarity "bounds". As for Evolution, I wonder if you've actually tried it, it's anything but stable.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

It was quite buggy years ago, but I've not noticed any problems for a long time?

It still definitely is. Go read their blog here. You'll see TONS of disgruntled Linux users complaining a lot about it. Then again, it's largely due to Linux's own issues (like the absolute mess their audio stack is)

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

You're comparing Apples and Pears (OEM Windows vs user installed Linux).

You're talking about regular end-users, and those do get their OEM Windows installed by Dell or whatever in 99%+ of cases. Of course, Linux wise it's a whole 'nother story (and not exactly an attractive one for most)

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Not sure about Vista, but XP doesn't have DVD (video) or Blu-Ray

Vista has a MPEG2 decoder and all that. I belive XP MCE does too. And again, OEMs install all that in advance for "normal" end-users.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Amarok works fine with my gfriends iPod

Only for some stuff (e.g. no DRM'ed songs from ITMS), doesn't work with every device (e.g. iPods with 2.x firmware). Can't say I've been really impressed.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

As I said maybe not for the powerusers or professionals skilled in the use of specific tools.

It's hardly limited to that.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

I'm not sure what the problem with GIMP is

It would be quicker to list problems it doesn't have...

The point is, Linux has nothing approaching even simple photos apps meant for everyday users like Aperture on OS X, or Photoshop Elements on Windows. Have a look at this and this for starters. That's just the tip of the iceberg (far better at basicaly everything), and I'm not talking about pro use at all here.

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Go easy, that's a bit harsh!

Not really... I'd call it spot-on. those happy with OOo (those who don't care about anything beyond the most basic features, and only basic apps) would be just as happy with any old version of any office suite pretty much (or Google apps almost)...

JedMeister, on Jul 10 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

most of your points aren't really relevant as this will be a pre-installed/OEM type of installation which will be tailored to the hardware. Therefore all hardware will work no worries.

99% of average users get their Dell/Acer/HP/whatever box with Windows already installed and working out of the box. As for the very, very few that get a box with Linux installed (which only seems to happen on netbooks -- not that I've seen anyone with a Linux netbook yet, and the popularity of Linux on netbooks is *very* rapidly decreasing too). Besides, most of the distros installed by netbook vendors tend to suck quite badly.

The only decent app I've seen under Linux is Firefox, which runs faster under Windows anyways (even the Windows version running under WINE is faster than the Linux version!). And then again, once you add the Flash problems...

[JedMeister]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Anecdotally, I know more people with Linux netbooks than I know people with portable Mac devices and they're all very happy. I think a netbook is more of an appliance than a PC anyway and other appliances (such as TiVos and many routers) run fine with Linux. To use email, surf the internet, listen to some tunes and watch the odd movie my 600MHz/512MB RAM Linux based netbook does it all beautifully, and boots in around 20secs, try that on any version of Windows (perhaps WinFLP?)

[Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa]

I have been using a 566mhz, 128mbram, computer for the last ten years or so. Watch movies, play 3d games, browse without any trouble. for a long time I even watched DVD via the built in player,

I ride in the subways, and once in a blue moon I find an executive type ( office employee ) using a labtop to chat on the internet. It is just pure chat, with no GUI on it at all. With the standard keyboard layout ( not the flat ones ). Sometimes a white background, and sometimes DOS black. The laptop sometimes looks like it is from 1995. So etc microcomputers on the internet is not a big deal.

People has various uses. It is just about how far of a strain you are willing to go, avoiding upgrading. Like I am unable to run high end programs on my 566mhz celeron ( win98 ) without it running out of memory, or crashing. In the computer lab, at my college. Peoples computer crashes when people try programming a simple "Hello World" and these are 4000mhz machines. In the Graphics design department ( mac ). The computer crashes non-stop for just opening a file ( G4, G5II ). I am sure people using a vectoring program on an Amiga2000, would also crash from time to time.

Personally I could careless about what google releases at all. If it was a rise of the Amigas, or some other computer type maybe I would care. There is so many differnt operating systems. All that is needed is the support for them.
Did you know you could watch high qaulity movies on pre-Windows/Mac machines???

[colore]

you know what is the biggest problem with linux, openoffice, and most of the other similar stuff?

that they are failed knock-offs of the originals, MS XP, MS Office, etc...

there is no innovation, no radical alterations, no ambition to go further, where no one has ever been

once you install linux, you get disappointed that you installed an OS that looks like a production of students or amateurs, trying to copy and simulate as much as possible the MS OS, like an exam 'create by yourself an OS that looks MS OS as much as possible'

many people have TONS of ideas to implement, but no one cares

okay, maybe linux is more stable (which I doubt), but as for user interface and features and convenience and capabilites... it does not deliver the customizability, the innovation, etc I was expecting

This post has been edited by colore: 27 January 2011 - 11:07 AM

[mickljohn]

-X-, on 08 July 2009 - 02:36 AM, said:

Quote

Introducing the Google Chrome OS
7/07/2009 09:37:00 PM
It's been an exciting nine months since we launched the Google Chrome browser. Already, over 30 million people use it regularly. We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be.

I personally cant wait. Sounds like a lean, mean, fighting machine unlike the recent bloat from MS(go ahead and flame me ).

Read the rest here...
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/int...-chrome-os.html

Thanks for sharing important information..
Its totally new for me.
i live your work.
basement remodeling rochester ny

This post has been edited by mickljohn: 24 January 2012 - 08:47 AM