Google Plans to Unveil PC Operating System

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530580,00.html

Read up!

 

'People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates.'

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

 

Kiss goodbye to privacy forever!

 

I very much welcome a competitor to Windows - it would be healthy for all concerned. However, I do not welcome it coming from Google. Once Google's business practices and (lack of) privacy practices affect us all, the anti-Microsoft feeling that prevails will pale into insignificance compared to the anti-Google response that will rapidly grow.

That said, the technical goals that Google have stated are laudable, given that they will initially aim their OS at netbooks. It will be interesting to see how they fare: will they dig deeply into the Microsoft share, or not? After all, when netbooks first appeared Linux was the OS of choice. That quickly changed as the first underpowered netbooks were replaced by more usable machines, and Windows XP regained its overwhelming share of the market (and, very probably, Windows 7 will replace XP in time).

Despite netbooks being touted as computers for web and email, already that is changing. Vendors are promoting the multimedia capabilities of their latest offerings, and with increasing capacity netbooks are simply becoming small-format laptops, with people's expectations being groomed to match. With this, application compatibility (and capability) is becoming more of an issue, and that will further strengthen the market for Windows, at the cost of simple web-capable OSs.

It will be interesting to see how Google's approach succeedes over time. After the initial hype and undoubtedly initial rapid rise in market share, will Google be able to hold onto it for long? We shall see.

 

Is what we are seeing here the slow but steady evolution from desktop monopoly (Microsoft) to Internet monopoly (Google)? That sure gives Sun's aged but accurate vision statement, 'the network is the computer', a whole new meaning...

 

This news is huge!

It is also great too; even if you don't use Google OS you can benefit from the solid competition Microsoft will now face in the OS scene.

 

Hi


Here's Some More Google OS Info : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8139711.stm


............ ............

 

Even if i dont use it myself compotition is good and if google can create a linux distro that the masses use even if its just because its "google" its a good thing.
linux is getting better all the time.
the OOTB hardware support is amazing. if it does become a market success companies will write applications that work on it which of course is just linux so i should be able to use those applications on other linux distros to. Good luck google.

btw i dont like the idea of cloud applications eiether.

I want my applications and data on my computer. otherwise if i lose internet connection my computer is about as useful as a brick.
back to the days of thin clients=(

 

You try to hack a government agency in the US with your Mac, and see how quickly you'll find yourself into deep troubles: on the internet there is no privacy.
I think many have tried to challenge MS and failed miserably (if statistics are any indication). Google has a reputation to achieve the unthinkable, and so far they have succeeded in just about any project they've undertaken.

I like MS, but I also like Google.

 

Amen, brother. Call me old-fashioned but I like my apps and data on my HDD.

 

Oh my, and I can hear the out cry now the first time a users ISP service drops, or a Google server crashes, or gets cracked, or hit with a DoSA.
Also in total agreement with the issues mentioned concerning Google and (the lack of) privacy.

 

This development is worth watching.
Competition is a good thing and Google may be able to pull this off.
I would check it out if/when it becomes available.

 

If Google does pull this off by producing a popular low resource OS it may have a negative impact on the industry, since it is the ever-increasing bloat of Microsoft OS that drives new hardware purchases.

It is also worthwhile to think about the impact this may have on the add-on security software market...

 

if it's open soure like they said, it's definitely more "trustworthy" than windows

 

Good points.
Especially relating to the market for security programs.
It could get interesting.

 

Arguable and has been discussed here and else where many times.
Open source can be both quicker to crack as well as to patch.

Is the glass half empty\half full.


I will stay with Win and\or Linux. And [MOVE][bounce]run[/bounce][/MOVE] like the devil himself is chasing me from The storm Cloud.

Then again I`m getting old.

 

Linux-based = blech.

But still, it's Google. Hopefully they'll manage to produce something usable.

 

Agreed.
They should have followed Apple's example and used FreeBSD.

 

There are different kinds of cloud and service providers will have varied clouds. Companies may have there own, benefit from encryption and validation, hard wired or tunnels. Some services may rely on local caches...etc.

 

actually i was talking more about knowing what's going on under the hood.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the core of Linux, let's see if they package it well.

 

Not sure what you mean by this "core of Linux", but compared to a BSD-derived-'nix, administration of a Linux box is poor.

If you mean the kernel, yes, there is no noticeable difference at this time, unless you are talking about multi-core PCs and SMP-aware applications, where I believe Linux does have an edge.

 

I am hoping that Google's OS will...

1- Do the job with FAR less bloat that Windows. (you guessed it -- I'm still using XP)

2- Provide a friendlier 64-bit environment for developers of security apps. (For details of how M$ has structured 64-bit Windows in such manner as to make it impossible for security apps to do an effective job, read page 5 of THIS Wilders thread. Pay special attentuion to Post Numbers: 101, 108. 111, 114, 120, 121.)

 

I was thinking mostly of the guts of it less the desktop or GUI aspect. The kernel is certainly at the center of it.

 

Then why use it and complain when there's plenty of alternatives available? Switch to Linux today for your bloat-free operating system!

I believe you were complaining about bloat?

You know, it amuses me to no end when Microsoft takes a step in the right direction and people whine about it. Locking down the OS kernel not only makes sense from the security perspective, it also reduces bloat by making security apps unnecessary. Sometimes it really makes me wonder if people's perception of security and bloat are really at the right place at all.