Technology Review
Google isn't saying how its new operating system will function, but the clues lie in its browser.
Soon after Google announced plans for its own operating system (OS), called Google Chrome OS, on Tuesday night, the Web giant clammed up about technical details, saying that the project is still at too early a stage. The first netbook devices running Chrome OS won't be released until the second half of 2010, so most users will have to wait until then to find out precisely how the software will work. But that doesn't mean there aren't hints out there already, and the biggest clues can be found in Google's Chrome browser, which the company says will be a key part of the new OS.
According to a post written by Sundar Pichai, a vice president of product management at Google, and Linus Upson, the company's engineering director, the open-source Chrome OS will consist of a Linux kernel with the Google Chrome browser running on top inside an entirely new desktop environment.
The Chrome browser was released nine months ago and is Google's effort to reinvent the browser completely: it's designed from scratch with Web applications in mind and is meant to be the only application that a Web-savvy user needs on her computer.
In an interview in March, Darin Fisher, an engineer on the Google Chrome team, said that in early sessions, the engineers decided to "take a page out of the operating system book" when they built the browser. Notably, the Chrome team decided to treat the browser as a launchpad from which the user can start different Web applications. Each application operates independently so that if one crashes, it doesn't affect the others. OSes, Fisher said, had to take the same approach to allow a single application to crash without requiring a user to reboot the whole system. This change in browser design helps give Web applications the stability that desktop applications enjoy.
The concept is easily extended back to the OS. Provided that the user relies on Web applications, such as Gmail, Google Docs, and the like, this simplifies the OS a great deal. It vastly reduces the number of applications that need to be installed and the amount of data that must be stored and processed on the computer itself.
With Chrome OS, Google will blur the line between the browser and the OS completely, says Ramesh Iyer, head of worldwide business development for mobile computing at Texas Instruments, which is one of Google's partners on the project. "The browser is your operating system," Iyer says. "The browser is your user interface. The browser is the mechanism from which you launch applications."
Streamlining the OS to focus on the Web, Iyer says, will allow devices to run more powerful programs with less powerful processors. By keeping processor requirements low, new devices could use less battery power and stay lighter. Texas Instruments, for example, is working with Google to integrate the Chrome OS software with its OMAP 3 multimedia applications processors, creating a system that could be easily installed in netbooks and other devices.
Giving Web applications deeper access to the underlying kernel could make it easier for Web developers to provide better functionality and a better user experience, says Jared Spool, founding principal of User Interface Engineering, a consulting firm based in North Andover, MA. When Web applications such as Gmail and Google Maps first appeared, Spool says, the software engineers who built them had to do a lot of hacking to create the appropriate levels of interaction. "When we went from the desktop to the browser, we took a huge step backward," Spool says.
The rapid rise of mobile operating systems is changing the traditional desktop and laptop OS.
The company unveils the technical details of its operating system.
Nice article. Google might as well call Chrome OS the Cloud Terminal since the heavy-duty processing will be done on their cloud servers. It's a great idea that will democratize the personal OS marketplace (anybody can compete by coming out with their own browser-type OS) but I don't think this is a good time to be coming out with a new OS.
I have said this elsewhere but the problem with operating systems is that they will all become obsolete in a few years. This includes all the dinosaurs from the 20th century: Windows, Unix, Linux, MacOS, etc. And let's not forget the processors they run on and the legion of programming languages that programmers use to write applications for them. They will all join the buggy whip and the slide rule into the pile of abandoned technologies. Why? Because the coming solution to the parallel programming crisis will not suffer a bunch of primitive and inferior technologies to survive.
So Google's new OS is yet another Linux OS? Please, don’t make me laugh. Linux is a decrepit museum piece from the 20th century. Eric Schmidt is clearly delusional in this regard. Google’s mountain of cash is not enough to guarantee success in this cutthroat business. Chrome OS is doomed before it is even born, in my opinion, precisely because it is a Linux-based OS. Heck, Google’s own future is precarious because the computer industry is at a dangerous crossroad. A wrong turn may turn out to be painful if not fatal. My advice is: Y’all should think carefully before deciding which way to proceed.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming crisis:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html
"Chrome OS is doomed before it is even born, in my opinion, precisely because it is a Linux-based OS"
What makes you think the linux kernel is more of a dinosaur than say Windows OS or Mac OS? You want it to be based on your futuristic OS that doesn't exist at all? I question your reasoning and suspect you are just a troll. That is not to say that I think that ChromeOS will be a winner, but I won't discount it just because it uses an operating system that exists today.
I suspect that you are either an aging baby boomer geek or a Turing Machine worshipper, or both.
Soon, when the pain becomes unbearable (it's all about money) the powers that be will realize that the parallel programming crisis that they are throwing gobs of money at trying to solve, was caused by the baby boomers, the very people that they are entrusting to find a solution. They don't know the solution because they are old and set in their ways.
It will suddenly dawn on industry leaders that it is time that the Turing Machine worshippers be gracefully coerced into retirement so that the industry can boldly break away from the hopelessly flawed computing paradigms of the last century and forge a new, more reliable, more productive and more secure future.
The computer science community spent the last twenty or more years trying to come up with a solution to the parallelism problem. They failed miserably. Twenty years is a little bit too long, in my opinion. Heck, ten years is an eternity in this business. Something has to give.
Parallel Programming: The End of the Turing Madness:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/06/parallel-computing-end-of-turing.html
Hmmm. The parallel programming crisis. Yes. Undoubtedly changes are are required in the way we approach solving computational problems. As complexity increases "traditional" serialized programming techniques simply won't suffice. But, and this is a big but, parallel processing is only a requirement for a certain subset of computational problems. Like it or not, text is going nowhere. Written language is not about to be replaced by complex 3 dimensional graphics that require an entire change in the way we (as human beings) interact with computers. Written language is not going to be replaced by futuristic Hieroglyphics and as such, there will be a vast majority of people who only need the computing power to read a web page or compose an email, or write a report for their boss about which cleaning products they should by.
Granted, certain people will need more computing power to create music, process photos or film and yes, some will need the type of computing power that will let them sort 10 petabytes of data in 10 minutes. But it's all about degrees. Suggesting that all operating systems and processors are essentially dead in the water because they don't conform to your vision of the future is simply ridiculous. It ignores some basic facts about the rate of change in the world and the pace at which technology is advancing. Let's not forget the numbers we're dealing with - 400m+ people using MS office. How many of them need more than the ability to create documents? Even if we look further down the line, when gigabit broadband is the norm (7 or 8 years by estimates in some countries - 10 - 15 in others) what will the vast majority of people be using it for? Downloading a film, streaming some music. Keeping in touch with their friends. I don't see what parallel computing crisis these people are facing that requires all of the work that has gone before to be thrown out and operating systems, processors, software, and no doubt infrastructure to be completely redesigned from scratch.
But hey I'm probably just an ageing baby boomer (whatever that means) with a crush on Turing.
bravid,
I am not sure you appreciate the problem. The parallel programming crisis is what's forcing people to use the mundane apps (word processing, email, etc.) you mentioned. They have no other choice. Solving the crisis will immediately open up an entire new world of possibilities: self-piloting vehicles and aircrafts, robotic maids, intelligent assistants that we can converse with in a natural language, etc... But it gets even better.
A solution will allow a new 3-D immersive and intuitive internet to emerge that will supersede the clunky one that we are now enslaved to. This is where Google's future health become rather precarious, in my opinion. I foresee an internet based on such things as 3-D neighborhoods, virtual real estates, an internet where cruising around is pure joy and visual discovery (like walking around San Francisco) as opposed to the text-intensive, headache-inducing, list-bound pain in the arse that it is now. Chrome is just an ordinary web browser. We need machines that we can talk to, machines that can suggest new adventures, machines that make us forget that they are machines.
Now, you may not think that these things will arrive in the foreseable future but you would be wrong. Unleash the computing power, the new mindset and the productivity boost that massive parallelism can bring and watch human creativity explode. Google's Chrome OS is a joke, in comparison.
I appreciate what you are saying about a brave new world involving robots and a 3 dimensional immersive internet and yada yada yada but I think this view is - without wishing to be patronising - naiive and a little misguided.
Robots, self piloting vehicles, autonomous swarms of interacting agents, intelligent assistants are all realities today. Granted they are in most cases fairly embryonic and natural language processing is arguably the most embryonic of them all but that doesn't meant that they don't exist. And if you look at how rapidly the progress has been made in all of these areas in just the last 5 years, let alone the last 20, it doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to see that the progress will continue to happen and will possibly exceed our expectations. Or maybe it won't but that doesn't mean it won't progress.
I particularly take issue with the idea that people use email or word processing documents because that's what they have to use. People don't have to use email, they can use skype. They don't have to use skype they can use the phone. They don't have to use the phone they can use SMS. Oh, hang on a minute. If people have skype, where they can have a video call with someone, why on earth would they resort to a more "mundane" communication channel? Why, given that we could speak to one another - with the option of being able to see the other person - would we choose to send SMS messages? And let's not forget how many SMS messages people actually send. In the UK at least, the numbers of SMS messages sent are measured in the billions. The answer is could be convenience. The answer could be that people want to interact in different ways at different times.
The basic point of yours that I have a problem with is that you appear to be saying that all people want a fully immersive 3 dimensional internet (whatever that is) at their disposal at all times and if they have that, somehow their boss won't need anymore reports to read at his leisure. Exam questions will no longer require written or typed answers. No-one will want to read a book or flick through a magazine. An enormous majority of people couldn't care less about walking down a virtual boulevard because they would rather walk down an actual boulevard and have a coffee with their friends. An enormous majority of people want to have an afternoon out shopping in actual shops, trying on actual clothes and having lunch somewhere.
A great deal of people don't take pleasure from just using a computer. Some people use it as a means to an end. Some people actually hate computers (young and old). Some people just want to get things done and they want to do it in the fastest way possible. At the moment, typing in some key words and getting a list of potential answers is pretty quick and importantly it fits with the incomplete nature of the knowledge I may have about the thing I am searching for. Natural language processing could possibly help with this meaning that I don't have to type in the question but you know what, I can type at about 60 words a minute and I'm very comfortable using a keyboard so I generally prefer to use one. Sitting in my office right now, I know how annoying it is to have two people in earshot having a conference call so how would a natural language interface work if I need to produce a 2000 word specification? How many people will I disrupt? Work from home I hear you cry. Well maybe. Undoubtedly more people will work from home in the near future but not everyone will. There will still be offices, there will still be public transport and there will still be government agencies, and shops where you can buy coffee. There will still be books and magazines and sheet music and canvas.
Anyway, I've bleated on for too long now.
Prey tell, what OS will the cloud computers be running?
Wow.....
Fantastic.....
Your scratch will be the diamond one day.....
Go go go.....
where can i download it? i'm so tired of typing and all that. nice discussion between you guys. were you on company time? good.
BTW, didn't microsoft get their a** chewed out and fined because they made the browser- internet explorer- an integral part of the OS?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> Chrome OS "MUST BE" like Windows otherwise it NEVER "WILL BE" >>>
.
"To be, or not to be..."
the new Chrome OS (and its software) "MUST BE" like Windows (and its software) otherwise it NEVER "WILL BE"!
Google has ALREADY attempted to succeed in the giant office-apps market... but has FAILED (with its current 0.86% share, IIRC) despite the large money invested!
if Google will try again to launch its online office-apps with Chrome OS, it will just LOSE its time and money, because, ALL offices (absolutely and nearly always) NEED an HIGH LEVEL OF PRIVACY that (so far) NO ONE online app can offer!
then, I believe that Google will design a (as much Windows-like as possible) desktop OS to compete with Microsoft, like, after all, I've ALREADY predicted OVER TEN MONTHS AGO in my GoOS blog:
http://newgoos.blogspot.com/2008/09/goos-screenshot-on-sony-vaio.html
.
Reply
robert.hargraves
39 Comments
Re: >>> Chrome OS "MUST BE" like Windows otherwise it NEVER "WILL BE" >>>
I predict Chrome OS will integrate features of GoogleDocs, where you can store text, spreadsheet, and presentation documents both online and offline. Collaborators can work together; you can also edit documents when not internet-connected.
Reply