Chrome OS: The Great Unveiling
By Harry McCracken | Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 4:45 am
On Thursday morning, Google is holding a press event that sounds like it’ll be the closest thing to an official introduction that the company’s Chrome OS for netbooks has gotten to date:
While this will be more of a technical announcement, we will be showing a few demos that will definitely be of interest to you as well as a complete overview and our launch plans for next year. We’ll also hold a Q&A session with members of the Google Chrome OS team following the presentation and demos.
I’ll be at the Googleplex for the briefing, and will blog it here just as quickly as I can. I’m still recovering from compiling my Internet Explorer 9 wish list, so I’m not going to muse on what I’d like to see in Chrome OS, or guess at what it’s likely to involve. But would any of you like to take a stab at it?
13 Comments
Read more:
13 Comments For This Post
November 18th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Most of the desktop Linux world is finally coalescing around a single distribution, Ubuntu. Unfortunately, there’s still not enough there to really compete with Windows. I’d like to see Google fix everything that’s wrong with Linux, and market the hell out of it. It would take a company of Google’s size to pull that off.
Unfortunately, what we’ll see on Thursday is a gimped derivative of Debian, with nothing more than the Chrome browser and links to Google services. For the few desktop applications that remain, even they will appear to run in tabs within the browser.
Also, I’m expecting every journalist covering the announcement to say, “This is the future; everything most users could want to do, tightly integrated with Google’s services, right in the browser, on a $300 netbook.” It’s a laughable notion, especially when you consider those same journalists are blogging right now from their $2000 MacBook Pros.
I hope I’m wrong about all of this, because I’d really love for there to be a credible alternative to Windows. I just don’t think that’s what Google is trying to create. What they ARE trying to create, I don’t think people are going to buy it. (Not even for free.)
November 18th, 2009 at 7:47 am
“I hope I’m wrong about all of this, because I’d really love for there to be a credible alternative to Windows”
Why do people keep seeking “credible alternatives to Windows” when you’ve had one under your nose for a quarter century? Show me a distro of LINUX with as much market share and vendor support as the Mac (particularly, since the release of OS X). Show me something– ANYTHING– you can do in Windows that you can’t do BETTER on a Mac? If need be, if you’re REALLY, REALLY stuck for a software equivalent, you can run Windows full speed right on Apple hardware.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Tom B is right about OSX, except for one key point. You have to buy Mac hardware to run it. If, but some stroke of magic, Apple allowed OSX to be installed on any Intel hardware, I am sure they would grab massive market share.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Show me a version of OS X that I can install on my $300 netbook (without hacking), and I’ll consider Mac a reasonable alternative.
However, for my main system, there’s a lot that Mac can’t do. There’s no good Mac-equivalent for Windows Media Center, on which I rely heavily as a DVR. Also, iTunes doesn’t meet my needs, and there’s no good alternatives for OS X, which is a problem. There are plently other Windows applications that I use regularly that have no Mac equivalents.
But, back to the first point, even if OS X met my needs, which it doesn’t, it’s not like I could just pick up a copy to install on my $500 quad-core PC, or on my $300 netbook. I’d have to buy new hardware, and Apple’s hardware is far too overpriced to be a viable alternative to what I already have.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Tom B is right. Still I’d like to see Linux distros step up their game against Microsoft and Windows.
Go Google.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
OS X is not and never will be an alternative to Windows, because only so many people are willing to buy the overpriced-yet-average Apple hardware required to run it. As soon as you try to run it on anything else besides the 10 or so computers it’s built for, you see how woefully bad of an experience OS X can be.
It would probably take Apple over a decade to catch up with Linux in terms of stable & reliable hardware support.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Tom B is right. Still I’d like to see Linux distros step up their game against Microsoft and Windows.”
Me, too. It’s the 21st century. Even if you have some (unjustified, IMHO) prejudices against Apple hardware price and/or variety, you still deserve better than Windows, no matter who you are.
“There’s no good Mac-equivalent for Windows Media Center, on which I rely heavily as a DVR. Also, iTunes doesn’t meet my needs”
I have no opinion on DVR software, as I don’t use any, and I don’t think iTunes is the paragon of perfection or anything, but iTunes IS free and very full-featured.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
If you are interested in free, alternative operating systems, don’t forget Haiku (which is looking more and more promising) and has just released version Alpha 1. Read more here:
http://ninjarabbits.blogspot.com/2009/11/download-haiku-os-alpha-1-release.html
November 19th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Tom B
If Apple and their OSX were an alternative as you claim, MS would have long been overtaken. But as it stands, Apple is not interested in mass market as compared to cream pricing. As one respondent said, if I can grab a copy of OSX and install on my PC, then Apple would be an alternative as you hope it to be.
As for the buzz surrounding Google Chrome, I am not the least bit surprised. I am among the very few that still holds the view that Google is making a big mistake by this move. If Chrome OS is going to be as they claim-a browser based OS that will initially run on netbooks and straight way hook to the net- I can confidently say it’ll not make any dent whatsoever in the massive market share of Windows, even with Google behind it. If you doubt me, look to the Chrome browser one year after its release relative to IE and you will understand what I am saying
November 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am
“If Apple and their OSX were an alternative as you claim, MS would have long been overtaken.”
MSFT had a huge head start, and their core market, Enterprise, is very slow-moving and really drinks heavily of the Windows/Office Koolade. MSFT has left themselves vulnerable by 1) losing the DoJ case 2) letting Bill gates leave 3) failing to publish a modern OS 4) having only a modest understanding of the consumer electronics market.
“I am among the very few that still holds the view that Google is making a big mistake by this move”
I agree with you. I wouldn’t mind seeing a LINUX distro succeed, but as a GOOG sharehold, I kind of wish they’d drop the stuff that’s obviously going nowhere– Chrome and Droid– and focus more on their core business search/advertising.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
tom b: “MSFT had a huge head start” – Do you have any knowledge of the history of the the PC industry? For most of history, Apple has had a technological lead on Microsoft. The original Mac was light-years ahead of DOS, and it wasn’t until Windows 95 that Microsoft finally reached parity Apple.
Ever since the introduction of the original Mac, Apple has failed to capitalize on THEIR “huge head start” by consistently pricing their products outside the realm of what normal people could afford. The trend continues even today, as MacBooks start at $1000 and go way up from there. Meanwhile, a full-featured Windows laptop can be found for around $600, and entry-level systems are just $300-400.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“The original Mac was light-years ahead of DOS”
Of course it was, but because of business’s obsession with IBM, they all went with DOS ANYWAY. I meant MSFT had a head start in market share.
August 16th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Mike Cerm : "Unfortunately, there's still not enough there to really compete with Windows. I'd like to see Google fix everything that's wrong with Linux, and market the hell out of it."
I'd l ike to see microsoft fix everything thats wrong with windows before they go charging the world a fortune for their ridiculously shoddy software. Automatic updates that kill your computer, serious compatability issues to the point where you can't even run older microsoft products, viruses, spyware, malmare. Not to mention windows' unnecessary resource hogging or that you have to take the long way round to do anything. Installing programs for example, with windows you have to open a browser, search for the program you want on the internet, download an installer, and then run the installer. With linux you type one simple line – sudo apt-get install <program name>. Another example – if i want to use my phone internet on my computer, for windows i have to connect my phone, install the software, load the software up and connect through that. With linux i plug my phone in and it connects to the internet.
And for another thing what exactly are these things you claim are wrong with linux. I can only think of one – its no good for gaming, but who cares? The pc gaming market has died (also thanks to microsoft) and if you want to play games then get a playstation. Any other 'problems' with linux are generally a pebcak issue.
TomB: market share does not prove anything. If people distribute their software for free they obviously cannot afford to market themselves in the way apple and microsoft can.
God >.<