Chrome OS is ridiculously simple--and that's why you'll love it.
Most of this article was written on a six-year-old computer running Google's new Chromium OS.
"Chromium OS" is the open-source version of the new Chrome OS that Google is developing for netbooks, tablets, and other lightweight machines. It's built from the source code that Google is making widely available, but it runs on standard hardware. Google's Chrome OS, in contrast, is designed to run on a new generation of stripped-down systems. These systems will probably be missing some of that legacy hardware necessary to run Windows, but will make up for this with a somewhat lower cost, lightning-fast boot times, and even some added security measures that will make them practically virus-proof.
You can download and run Chromium OS today if you know where to find it, but be careful. If you just Google for "chrome OS download," you'll probably end up with a modified version of Suse Linux--the "fake Google Chrome OS." Ironically this will run just fine on most netbooks, but you've got to be a Linux master to use it. You can edit files on the Web with Google Docs, or on the local computer with Open Office (which is included), but you need to keep track of where your documents are saved and manually move them back and forth. You can download and install cool programs from Linux software repositories, but there is always a chance that a program that you download might hack your system and steal your data. And you need to remember to run "software update" on a regular basis to install those security patches. In many ways the experience is quite similar to running Microsoft Windows or MacOS.
In contrast, the real Chromium OS is a completely different approach to operating systems. What you get is a whole lot less than a fine Linux distribution with a bunch of open-source software. Perplexingly, this ends up being a whole lot more useful, user-friendly, and secure.
Think of Chromium OS as a copy of Google's Chrome browser running on top of a Linux kernel. The version I tested has no window manager (which means no overlapping windows)--instead, the browser's window expands to fill the computer's screen. The developer versions require that you log in (although everybody uses the same username and password). The browser then opens to Google's home page, and you log in to your Google account. To edit a document you just click on "More," then "Documents," then edit the document in Google Docs.
There's not a lot to configure with Chromium OS, and that's kind of the point. The browser has a little wrench-like icon that lets you change your time zone, or the sensitivity of the touch-pad, or enable tap-to-click. You can connect to a Wi-Fi network, specify a home page (although the default is Google, of course), and you can tell Chromium to save your passwords. You can also delete your cookies, clear your cache, and restore the system to defaults. Bookmarks sync to your Google account. And that's pretty much it, at least for now.
The company's new operating system will provide it with unprecedented data and advertising opportunities.
The company unveils the technical details of its operating system.
Google is developing a new computing platform equal to the Internet era. Should Microsoft be worried?
Really this isn't anything new at all. This is essentially a terminal service. Or perhaps a do it yourself web appliance.
Not impressed. It all just hype.
Brian
http://www-tooele-homes.com
Just as netbooks are a step backwards in functionality, so is this. We didn't WANT this functionality 10-20 years ago cause at that time you either had to be plugged in or restricted to a... what... 45-120min battery life? What I guess I don't understand... is this designed to run on ARM or x86? Cause whats wrong with Android? I guess its just the interface design that is important for different screen sizes, but would it have been that hard to slap a new interface onto android instead?
For years I though proponents of the "cloud" wanted it to take over ever function of computing and I argued against it passionately. Then with the popularity of netbooks I realized its value. A desktop will always be local, a laptop will always be local. But really why do you need that much local storage for a tablet or netbook? Chrome will run on low system specs and on the "cloud" reducing hardware costs (such as 64gb SSDs) and putting MIDs into an even lower income hands (think kids, minimum wage workers, 3rd world countries, etc) This is NOT GOING TO REPLACE YOUR PRIMARY COMPUTER! (unless perhaps you only use your primary computer to this extent)
Just waant to highlight this. I have been using Google chrome for a while since was released. If you are using an old pentium 2 or 3 processor with Ram of 256M, you can really notice the difference. I found Google chrome can operate smoothly in such PC while FireFox is quiet slow to operate in particular when you add many Addons. However in the other hand in addition to the lack of a lot of useful plugin Google Os still buggy and it crushes from time to time.
Definitely Google has a lot to offer.
You're applauding the future of computing as a 1980s-style network of dumb terminals? What's next -- green text on a black screen?
Let's check the value of this proposition: in exchange for your privacy, I will give you a significantly slower response time, reduced number of available programs, cumbersome local storage of your documents, and an inability to install programs.
"The power of this operating system comes from fact that you can't download and install software." Very funny, but isn't it a bit early for an April Fool's joke?
What Less...? There's practically Nothing!
Let me get this straight: A stripped down OS that will not allow me to download software outside of a pre-defined list of apps, that is constantly prying on my activities (much like Gmail), and that supports limited system tweaks (already provided by Chrome browser). Is this Google's take on a revolutionary OS?! If it is, then boy don't we have another Microsoft in the making.
I used to admire Google, and still do for their immaculate search engine. But lately their actions have been chipping away at their reputation with some of their products. I understand that if you are Yahoo, or Hotmail or Gmail, of course you own the email content and there's nothing a user can do about it. But at least don't blatantly pry on the content and serve up ads alongside of the text! Another case in point: Google Buzz. Let alone that it's a rip-off of Facebook and Twitter combined, but what is more disconcerting is that existing users are suckered into this "new" feature without any prior notice! C'mon Google, you can do better than this.
This is like how water is a much less fattening and intoxicating version of beer. Yay!
-
I think the Chrome OS concept is definitely the way of the future. A web app like Gmail shows how wonderful it is when the app is not local, and can be updated and vastly improved and expanded upon by it's author without anything being downloaded and installed on a local machine. And it's instantly accessible by any computer you happen to be using with a web browser.
-
However. This is very much for and of the future. Right now at least half of the most useful programs people use on computers have absolutely no web-based equivalent. You can experience pretty much all of Chrome OS's goodness just by deleting all of your best most useful programs from your computer and just using a Chrome browser. Isn't computing a lot easier and smoother when all of those pesky things like video editing, creating complex graphics and business documents and multimedia, 3D design, CAD, etc etc etc are stripped out? Rather than spend just 50% of your time watching idiotic Youtube vids, playing Chatroulette, writing vacuous Tweets to your friends, updating your Facebook status, and that old-timey time waster, good old web surfing, you can now do it 100% of the time. At least you've got a marginally useful word processor in Google Docs so you can do some imitation real work.
-
It seems to me we're putting the cart before the horse. Make the web apps first. All of them. This will take a long time. Then, when there's actually a critical mass of useful apps online that approach parity with real local productivity apps, we can indeed, easily and naturally ditch the traditional heavy local OS and go with stripped down dumb terminal browser OS's like Chrome OS. The OS? That's the easy part, trivial really.
-
Right now, less is really just that, less, and very much so.
I have been involved in designed computers since about 1983. The model Google has chosen is nothing new other than the concept of using the "cloud" rather than a dedicated mainframe/server. This is not to say that it is a bad solution, especially if the problem it solves is Google's problem of ensuring future dominance of the web.
A great step forward in performance (eg booting, loading apps, etc) is the SSD. If we look at current performance of SSD based systems and extrapolate out, even Microsoft will have a hard time creating enough bloat to clog the disk I/O. The "lightness" of Chrome, while appealing to me on most every level, becomes moot within the next five years as disk I/O is no longer a bottleneck. Not to mention that we will probably be executing directly out of flash and one will be able to maintain his/her system in whatever state desired.
As to being a minimal system (having nothing but the "browser" with some integral drivers) therein lies a major security risk. How do I add my own encryption scheme or my own security checks? Is Chrome O/S going to be open source to the point where I can create my own processes and have them execute locally and remotely? Any code that gets past Google's security will have access to everything; the browser itself becomes the single biggest point of corruption and the single target for hackers akin to the MS Windows. If you are going to access any outside network (especially the web) you are open to compromise and someone sooner (probably) or later will hack the system -- just like the Chinese did to Google and others recently.
Essentially, all I see Google Chrome O/S as buying me is fewer security options (everything cloud based), fewer configuration options (for me bad, for most people good) and, potentially, a repeat of the multitude of fiascos created by any potential monopoly ala Microsoft.
Amazing how short sighted we continue to be
Reading the comments from readers brings back memories of what once was said about the lowly PC. When it first came out it was a commonly held belief that they weren't real computers and they certainly would never would never replace Mainframes and Unix servers. Now, while it's true these big systems are still around and provide a valuable service, PCs have become the main driving force for most of the computing industry today.
IMHO what should be obvious to everyone is that the computing paradigm is shifting once again, this time to web based applications and while it may be argued that the underlying concept is not new, it's capability to deliver responsive, graphically rich applications economically is. It's true that today web apps are rather crude compared to PC apps just like PC apps were once crude in comparison to Mainframe and Unix applications but given enough research and development this will change. What Chrome / Chrome OS and web apps in general are demonstrating today is were the industry is headed. Given the relative low cost of web application development and delivery to the end user combined with the ability to easily reach a large world wide audience means that whether or not anyone likes it, this is the future.
Now I doubt that PC's will disappear anytime soon if at all. Like Mainframes and Unix servers there will probably always be a need for them. However for the average Joe user it is obvious that Phones, Tablets, Netbooks or similar type devices combined with web delivered applications will no doubt be the new mass computer platform within 3-5 yrs.
If we consider the open nature (i.e standards) of web application development, I doubt that Google will ever be able to force the industry to follow them like Microsoft did in the past, but given their willingness to put in the research and development dollars with Chrome/Chrome OS, Google is positioned well to take advantage of the situation. Whether Microsoft, Apple or someone else will be competitive with Google in this area remains to be seen. What should be very clear from this and other similar articles is that in the future for most personal computing devices the OS will never again be a driving factor. It no longer matters whether someone uses Windows, Apple, Unix, Linux or BSD variant etc... For the web application market the OS simply DOES NOT MATTER!!!!
If enough people want a more configurable OS, more control over private data or some other feature, if Chrome OS won't provide it then XYZ OS will, and the beautiful thing for web application developers, for the most part they do not have to concern themselves with these questions. These feature type questions will be up to the OS provider to decide. The only real constant forced on OS developers will be the need to implement the web standards so your favorite web application and or website will work.
Re: Amazing how short sighted we continue to be
I'm totally in agreement with jensenta. Who is writing on this blog? This group sounds like dinosaur programmers from the Microsoft heydays. I'm a web and application programmer and always got the question after making an app, Can we put this online? After getting my jQuery skills sharp, I've never looked back. The web frees us and we can do everything on it, even photoshop -> http://pixlr.com/ . What about OnLive.com and all the other apps going to web and the fact that all multi-media plays so well on it? Take the cobwebs out of your brain, bloggers..
"You can download and install cool programs from Linux software repositories, but there is always a chance that a program that you download might hack your system and steal your data."
You're an idiot.
Never has any software in a gnu/linux distribution repository "hacked" (what you meant was "cracked", hacking is just programming) someone's system and stolen their data.
I can't believe you were permitted to publish a technology review on technology review, considering your most apparent ignorance of technological matters.
Does no one remember the NC concept by Oracle in the 1990s?
It was a fantastic idea. You have a small, cheap computer (we're talking £100 here) which has a OS burnt into it and gets its files and updates from a central server or Internet.
So all created data is stored safely on the server and repairs are easy to perform, you just replace the computer and switch it on.
Why didn't it take off?
The computer industry was too Intel/AMD orientated and didn't trust the ARM direction. Also Internet access on these early devices was limited to LAN or 33Kbits modems. The former was fast. But expensive. The later slow and cheap. But phone time was expensive.
Let's not forget the first NC devices were ARM powered and British. Now it looks like Chrome OS will return on the ARM chip again!
Let's hope the reborn NC concept works this time!
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
mfolbe
49 Comments
doesn't sound appealing to me
I like having my documents on my computer rather than having them somewhere in cyberspace. I like downloading programs to my computer. Open office is slow without many of the best shortcut options that microsoft has developed for it. I don't think I would like this google os.
Reply
binarylion
1 Comment
Re: doesn't sound appealing to me
The author was pointing out that the real Chrome OS doesn't have OpenOffice. That was the fake one.
And I'd say for the majority of users, Google Docs provides all the features they would ever need. Heck, that's how I made it through college. I wrote all my papers in Google Docs.
While I understand the privacy issues of having all your documents in the cloud, the convenience for most documents is worth the risk to me. As long as there is a way to bring down mission critical docs to a portable drive, I'm in.
IMHO, Chrome OS hits two sweet spots: as a secondary machine for 'power users' or as a primary machine for the 'casual user'. I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but from what I've read it hits both those targets well.
Reply