Posted on 07/12/2009 9:23:55 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
announcement of a Chrome operating system, coming just nine months after its launch of the Chrome browser, has the tech sector buzzing over the possibilities. Google is targeting netbooks, claiming to have agreements with several OEMs already inked. How will the option of a Chrome OS be received by the desktop-using masses? Are they ready for a PC experience that will rely heavily on applications hosted in the cloud? Or would they rather stick with the tried and true desktop model, be it Windows, Macintosh or one of the many flavors of Linux?
Google makes the case for the cloud very compelling: Desktop systems were designed during the pre-Web era -- certainly long before Web 2.0 took over.
This is something anyone who has grappled with a glitch-prone OS (I'm looking at you Vista) can understand.
Another potential Chrome plus: Security may wind up being better. Right now, Internet security is entirely dependent on user behavior -- whether someone installs a patch and keeps the AV or firewall updated. Such maintenance, though, can be handled easily from the provider side in a cloud-based scenario.
The Tradeoffs
Nothing, though, is free -- not even on the Internet. An OS running applications primarily hosted in the cloud will entail certain tradeoffs.
(Excerpt) Read more at technewsworld.com ...
********************************
The uptime/downtime issue that recently impacted many Gmail users would apply to all cloud-based computer activities.
Good summary article ...
Again, Linux takes on Windows. Micro$oft created Windows 7 for several reasons, one of which Vista is too big, ugly and slow for netbooks. Google sees a marketing opportunity to put their own wrapper around another of the plethora of Linux distributions and target netbooks as well.
Google’s distribution will have Google all over it, for Google’s own purposes, so I would think it will not be as attractive as the FREE Ubuntu which is most probably the best managed, developed and popular Linux distro on the market today.
It will be interesting to see if people really want Google into “everything” they do on their netbooks. I certainly don’t for a host of reasons, and Ubuntu works beautifully on my netbook. And the price is right.
I doubt anything based on Linux will ever work for your typical home user. It is just too complicated - can we expect them to hand edit configuration files and compile programs from source?
Gawd.
How many stories between now and he middle of next year will we see about this vaporware?
Kind of reminds me about Lindows. The linux distro that was going to slay the giant because walmart was going to carry computers that had them until whoops the computers they were on sold at a rate similar to molasses moving in winter.
There are distros of Linux that are already easier to use than Windows. Besides, you’d be very surprised how many things you probably deal with on a regular basis that are based on Linux. Tivo and many wireless routers, for instance.
When I get a new printer, to use it in Windows, I have to install a bunch of bloatware crap that slows down the system, or I can’t use half the features. With Linux, I just have to plug it in and it works. Same with digital cameras and scanners.
For a user like me, I have to edit configuration files, because I have things like multiple monitors, but for the average user, just install Linux Mint and it’ll work out of the box. Everything installed for you. Flash, Realplayer, Office, etc. Want something that isn’t installed? New programs are available at the touch of a button (an app store if you will) and it’s all free. Want to run Windows programs? You can use Crossover Office to run them natively with a pretty interface and no config files to edit. That costs money and doesn’t work for everything. Or you can install your copy of Windows XP inside Linux for nothing. There’s even a ‘seamless mode’ that makes Windows behave as if the applications you are running are native to Linux.
Now, me personally, I like the command line and I wish everything was as easy as manually editing a configuration file all the time. Frankly, I’m constantly griping about how annoying it is to have to do things on the various Windows machines throughout the house.
The trouble with relying on the cloud is that it’s not always available.
Cloud computing could be a boon for business travelers, but if I ran an IT department at a company, I’d want to set up my own miniature cloud, rather than rely on Google. Let the travelers tunnel in via VPN and access their stuff that way.
When was the last time you used Linux? Ten years ago I was compiling programs from source, and I do sometimes edit config files because I set up my own servers, but the average user can just use GUI config panels. My wife (very non-tech) uses Linux and rarely Windows.
I'm not saying there aren't problems. Apple took BSD (very close to Linux) and put a friendly front end on it. Even Ubuntu doesn't match Apple's or Microsoft's ease of use. Maybe Google will help out here.
Your description of windows only applies to XP. Now everything from printers to whatever is plug and play with Vista and 7.
What you describe would be the same thing as me saying that with Linux you have to do a rebuild whenever you want to install new hardware. The newer distros have pretty much eliminated that. So it is the same with Windows.
I like Chrome but a browser based OS is infinitely far from competing with Windows as an OS. The last thing we need is to start over with a new OS.
C'mon. There's Linux distributions that are Windows user friendly. I.E, GUI. I.E. No CLI necessary. I.E. easy to use. I've not EVER opened a terminal for anything other than casual curiosity. There's too many distributions that put the lie to what you say. It was true in the past, but not necessarily true today.
It reminds me of the "network computer" that Sun promoted about a decade ago. It went nowhere. Eric Schmidt comes from Sun, and so maybe the dream is still dancing in his head.
And then there was Netscape 15 years ago. The browser was going to be the desktop, and Netscape would own it. It didn't quite happen that way.
The problem is the network. It needs to be constantly available and as fast as a local hard disk. Good luck.
It was a few years ago, probably back in 2005. I was administrating a Linux server at work. The need to edit configuration files wasn’t just because it was a server - most basic operations required that. That was probably a good thing for a server, but I just didn’t see a home user being able to do those things.
You’re probably right about the current versions though.
Cloud computing is the way this technology should go for 95% of home users. Most folks shouldn’t have to worry about software installation and maintenance. Home computer service should work like phone service or cable service.
Whether Chrome OS is a viable step in that direction is to be seen.
Well, it’s nice to hear that Windows has finally become easy to use. I’ll have to try Windows 7 when it comes out.
You can test your system by downloading the ISO. Pretty much every one of them has a live CD nowadays. If you burn it to a CD and boot from it, or put it on a memory card and boot from that, it’ll load the OS and show you what it looks like out of the box.
IMHO, they’re going to go overboard with it. I think it will be universally shunned for at least a generation and maybe never make it at all. I know I’m in the minority on that, but I think the powers that be are misreading the market in the same way as all of the ‘analysts’ who said that the netbook would never catch on. It simply isn’t cost effective to do everything in the cloud and pay monthly fees to use software, nor is it cost effective for the end user to pay for the network connections necessary to make it fast enough to emulate a desktop hard drive.
I understand that they want to release programs like MS Office this way. When they ditch end user installations and go cloud only, watch the stampede to Open Office go so fast it’ll make your head spin.
I still think it is a great business model for the lion’s share of the home market. A large percentage of home computer users only want to surf the net and use email. The business market is another thing, entirely.
The key word is convenience. PCs (and I include MACs) are not convenient.
You would be surprised at the number of people who don’t know about, and don’t care about the technical aspects of computers. Those folks, instead of plucking down hundreds of dollars for a computer that they have to maintain but are not competent to, could subscribe to a computer “service” the same way that they subscribe to cable. The dedicated computer itself could be a part of the service and when there’s a problem with the computer, a technician could come and swap out boxes.
I could see the cable companies running with this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.