Submitted by “At a high level, Chrome OS sounds like the most interesting thing to happen to the low end netbook/notebook market since we saw the first Atom platforms. The problem has never been hardware, but rather the software. At $299 – $399, for someone who is truly just going to rely on web based applications, I can see Chrome OS being a very good alternative to a netbook. The integration of Qualcomm’s Gobi modem is particularly brilliant, giving every Chrome notebook a GPS as well as cellular data connectivity. The 100MB of free transfers per month for two years is just perfect for light users. Chrome OS or not, I’d like to see this sort of a setup on all notebooks.”
I think this is next to useless. Maybe for a light mobile user who uses it to grab email headers a few times maybe but I don’t think it’ll even come close to being useful for light users on this platform.
Than if I created an xsession that simply launched the Chrome Browser through GDM or KDM or whatever?
Well. Nothing!
Maybe I’m just confused on the whole purpose of ‘the cloud’, personally I don’t like the idea of my Data being just out there on the Net.
It’s funny, I was trying to read the comments on the article’s page, and one guy went into this huge rant about Ubuntu on Netbooks, I especially found the part funny where he is trolling about Flash performance under Linux, and how somehow magically Chrome OS isn’t going to have the same issue.
Then people who were talking about using it as a gaming platform! Seriously, I would think Anandtech’s audience would be much like this one and actually be at least semi-intelligent. But they apparently don’t understand that ChromeOS is Linux that boots to Chrome Browser, and that it’s going to be on netbook hardware which is not meant for any gaming outside of maybe some flash games.
So really, I could get a netbook, throw a minimalistic distro on it, have it boot straight into Firefox / Chrome / Opera, whatever and then have a website with pretty links set to different web apps and it’d be the exact same thing.
Sad, really.
I still don’t understand how this would be different from having a netbook with Android on it and using the webbrowser.
There are still areas where there is no 3G coverage where this silly Chrome OS would probably not work fast enough.
I can’t believe there is even a market for this.
It also supports wifi ofcourse. I’m sure it will also only push changes of the OS/personal settings to “the cloud” when you are not downloading webpages. So it would not interfere with your . Atleast if they are smart.
Also, I think (webpage/apps) developers will eventually start to understand the HTML5 Offline cache. Without it it would be useless, you are right.
But what if every application you ran was downloaded/updates from the internet every time you use it and the last version you downloaded was always cached locally for when you don’t have any connectivity.
That is what this is.
It gets interresting when you’ll just have a device as big as the current touch/smart phones and you can plug in a normal screen, mouse, keyboard, headphones/headset, etc. wherever you are.
Hell, it probably will be your phone.
Edited 2010-12-11 13:12 UTC
I already have that with my N900
“Google’s Chrome OS chiefs explain in Technology Review how most of the web-only OS’s features flow from changing one core assumption of previous operating system designs. ‘Operating systems today are centered on the idea that applications can be trusted to modify the system, and that users can be trusted to install applications that are trustworthy,’ says Google VP Sundar Pichai. Chrome doesn’t trust applications, or users — and neither can modify the system. Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved.”
How does this sit with those who are so vehemently opposed to the iApp and OSX Apps store concepts? And what about openness? Surely if you want your phone “open” you want the same for your netbook?
Well, don’t know about others, but I’m just as opposed to this as I’m opposed to Apple’s distribution model. It’s the same idea at the core, though Google’s implementation promises to be much more secure at the cost of being even more restrictive.
Tomorrow’s digital world promises to be a dictator’s most wonderful dream.
Edited 2010-12-12 12:42 UTC
It looks like, you will be able to run any and all HTML5 apps out there. Obviously HTML5 apps aren’t installed, so their idea is not comparable with Apple’s walled garden app store.
Isn’t the whole idea of ChromeOS that it’s purely HTML5(Google Gears, Adobe AIR, Silverlight or whatever) and online?
How clever… they’ve re-created BeIA… except with none of the coolness of it running on a BeOS based OS.