Correction: In 1984 and years afterward, Apple had a huge user base. After Win95, they took a nose dive. I know it's hard to think outisde this decade, but Apple was once had the most popular OS.

Hi
I excite about new Google Chrome OS and warred about useable software.
Google chrome OS use windows software running because I use software AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop & Autodesk software so I Thing Much Better to all user because many more Windows use like essay to use and more software support Linux & Mac nice but trouble for useable software without Internet

I still Whit for coming Google Chrome OS .........
I hope he faster Then Windows & Linux or Mac more new power full Graphics and essay to use and Music, Gaming and internet higher facility

Thank you for take my suggestion

Cool,

This will work with my 286 desktop. Will it require more than 8 MB or RAM and a 750MB HDD?

If it is anything like the rest of the crap they offer, it won't be worth a dime. Even their search is crap now. Google, once, had a great search.

and you think what, Bing is a good search engine now??

I have never used Bing, and I never will.

Sounds like Frankenstein OS to me.

to robmanic44 --- Oh no, you can't leave, what am I supposed to do for comic relief at work? When you take off in your waaaaahmbulance, can you do me a favor and take fatty and some the other cronies with you. You will probably need the company at the funny farm.

(I hate when comments don't follow under the post where I click on Post Reply. BN--you really need to get better forum software)

In a lot of ways, this combines a lot of business applications in a way that never has been done.

Maybe obviously, this is intended to run Google's applications and to promote monthly revenue at a very low start up cost. Applications store temporarily to local storage and do an automatic, seamless back up once connected to the internet. Since sharing is a part of their applications, you'll be able to work on a document in a cooperative manner from wherever you are in the world.

Small businesses should love this because it takes care of a lot of the nuisance work. Obviously, it's not for gamers but this could boost Linux gaming at some point. Home users, especially those currently doing web browsing, e-mail, and a few movies and photos should get a lot out of it also.

i guess we can always hope for it will take Linux place as the best free OS for a computer (Linux doesn't deserve the praise it gets)

MS is light-years ahead of Google in the OS marketSSS. That means plural: Windows Mobile will KILL Android/Iphone within a few short years... Apple will continue being the freaks that must have total control over everything, while MS will give the devs and hardware partners total freedom to market their own s*** on its own merit (and their own marketing funds ;) ). The creme of Windows Mobile phones will rise to the top without any risk to MS in other words... Dev tools for MS OS's will be well ahead of the competition for oh-so-many years to come -- always a pleasure to work with, with liberal access to intimate parts of the OS (better usability than security)... IPhone with its sexy eye-candy GUI is a fashion soon to be over. The many competitors will soon have a better "highest-end" Windows Mobile devices (with better REAL IMPORTANT features as EFFICIENT multi-tasking), and the other competitors will also always have the better "near-high-end" devices when you take VALUE into account (device & multi-year contract costs). 90% of the people care for best value. MS has been able to consisently deliver BEST VALUE in almost EVERYTHING they do, due to economies of scale historically in their favor.

Why am I talking about Windows Mobile? Because even that "trimmed functionality" OS is gonna be infinitely better than "Google Chrome OS". So I won't even try to compare it to Windows 7 or 8 of the future...C'mon now...

But really, why not call Google Chrome OS what it is - Linux. They're not inventing anything new. It'll have the same exact problems: no varied hardware support, no varied COMMON software support, not enough games, no sane capitalistic company spending any amount of time on it...

Anything they put in this Chrome OS, and which will benefit Google on the expense of other companies, will immediately be rooted out, and only the "good ideas" they'll pour into the OS will "magically" appear in other Linux distros. So WTF did you accomplish there? Google wants to serve ads -- the open source community wants to block... Google wants you to use their browser -- the open source comm wants Firefox/options...

Google wants to be like Apple -- to market a "complete" solution...iPhone, MacBook, underwear... It ain't gonna work, sorry.

Microsoft is so much more advanced than Google knowledge-wise. Just thinking about the amount of TOP QUALITY CODE they have under their control is mind boggling (generations of desktop OSs, server OSs, mobile OSs, office suites, Exchange server, SQL server, XBOX, Messenger, drivers, other hardware interfaces, Studio, Live Services, Media Player, Virtual PC, PowerShell, CRM...) At least 1000x the amount of code Google managed to come up with in their search engine and gmail ambitions (the other "markets" - are so far a lame joke...gtalk vs Messenger hahahaha...)

Google will have to pour tens of billions of dollars into this project in order to give MS a real fight. They cannot afford to. It'll be yet another gtalk/chrome browser lame experiment. They'll have a tiny market share that cannot ever grow above 5%, because to grow it'll mean risking the entire company's oxygen. The crazy fashionists are already kneeling to the Apple idol... The rest of the people actually wanna see VALUE in their purchases...

Windows Mobile IS and always will be pathetic.

Which is of course why its market-share will increase steadily over the next few years, right? lol

Some ppl lack proper vision. Apple's "brand" will be diminished with Windows 7 sexiness exposed to the masses, and Windows Mobile 7+ kicking Apple all over its fatty arse hehehe

I hope that goolgle crome will concentrate on security, speed and web. I believe that there wont be second though of its GUI. Because we have seen google crome (simple and elegant). Later on may be google crome os can try some flashy things using KDE 4.* environment to make it more user friendly and more preferable than Windows OS.
GOOD LUCK.. waiting eagrly..

its not like windows dont have any competition, they have linux and mac os, so why haven't they defeated windows but google chrome can?

a crippled OS will not go far, cloud based web app is a fail to be written on a laptop.

I hope google build on linux and make it work, we will see.

I would really like to see how EU will react to this...they kicked MS a** because they thought MS is tying up the browser to the OS...now Google is tying the OS to the browser....stupid EU...they will take a couple of years to understand this...

that said...I really don't understand what's the big fuss about google OS...they're will just be bundling a *nix variant with Chrome browser....

so how is this different from me having a ubuntu with only Opera or Firefox on it ?

Google is the biggest one trick pony in human history...the only thing they are making money is from ads being served in their search....and that is official...what's unofficial is they are getting thousands of GB of user behaviour data without spending much other than throwing out "free" products....

Evil google....

Google makes their revenue from advertising and marketing...

Are people really taking them seriously?

The only 'Google Apps' that exist are there to either 'data mine' your information for advertising or offer you further advertising.

Android already does the whole lock-in of web services, and a full Google OS platform would be even worse. What if my 'web/os Application doesn't want to share my user information or doesn't want to use Google Search - then it won't run on Google OS.

If you think Microsoft of the 90s was evil, then just wait til you see what Google has for you. They are on a path to make Microsoft look like a saint...

People think all the Google search and apps are FREE and has no clue how Google makes tons of money...

" then just wait til you see what Google has for you."

..and just what does your crystal ball predict, Oh Great One?

Being concerned about privacy is well and good, but immediately assuming a company that uses advertising as it's revenue is suddenly going to do something *else* (insert menacing voice) with it is a little bit of a stretch...wouldn't that risk them *losing* that revenue??

Obviously this lad has forgotten the Draconian EULA Chrome had where any image uploaded using it could be scammed by Google and sold to the highest bidder for whatever they wanted - because they now automatically had the "rights" to it. That only got changed when people actually read the EULA and b****ed.

And this is the company the wittle anti-MSers want to twust.

Oh yeah - REAL intelligence there...

"the Draconian EULA Chrome had where any image uploaded using it could be scammed by Google and sold to the highest bidder for whatever they wanted - "

Source?

I'd love to see where it said they were going to *sell* it.

*yawn*

Right, they never did. They said that they would have rights tot he use of the image.

Know why? So they could display it through their service...to you...or your co-workers...or your friends (ya know..anyone *you* gave the link to). Because without that, they would *not* be able to do it.

Same with Facebook. They cannot display it to other users if they do not have the rights to do so. The EULA merely expresses that you concede these rights to them so the service will actually, ya know...function.

Source?

You Kidding????

Any early version of Chrome.

READ the EULA.

Who says they'd sell it?

It's a Corp.

It exists to make profit.

At any cost.

By any means.

Do the math.

Honestly dude, you're NOT that naive.

Not just any version, but the very first beta version, which was almost immediately ammended.

...Google struck a clause in the End-User License Agreement for the first beta of its Chrome browser, which quite explicitly said not only that Google had the right to reproduce any content users posted through its services, but that it had the right to pass that data onto third parties.

"You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services," read section 11.2 of the Google Chrome EULA...

http://www.betanews.com/...is-it-anyway/1220545728

@roj:

Who said they'd sell it? Seriously?

Uh... *YOU* did.

"scammed by Google and sold to the highest bidder"

Hence my asking for your source on that....which is apparently...you. Credible as always.

...and I see we're on the "All Corporations are Evil" jag again, so yeah...sorry I asked.

Soon as it's available I'll rush to give it a whirl, evaluate it honestly, compare it to the opposition, and if it's free dump Windows and go with it. The Linux mob will not bother to try it, they will however give their views on why it's rubbish. PC_Tool will tell you why Windows is the only way to go and then proceed to pick a fight with the only Linux user on the block fatty. Opera users will just tell you Opera rocks, and the firefox brigade will still be complaining about the speed tests which continually show Chrome to be faster. Just think about it though, fastest browser, best O/S, already best everything else, no doubt about it Bill will have to return or we're all doomed.

"PC_Tool will tell you why Windows is the only way to go and then proceed to pick a fight with the only Linux user on the block fatty."

Ouch. That hurts man.

1.) I was hoping an OS was Google's plan all along. Look back at the comments here when the rumors first started. They haven't evolved much, my wish for how they would accomplish it is described below. I wanted Google to succeed with this. I am very disappointed they, IMO, screwed it up.

2.) fathead is a Mac user. We think. We're not really sure what kind of computer his Mommy has set up for him in his basement abode.

3.) If I were forced to use illustrator and Photoshop all day, guess which OS I'd want to use. No really....guess. You just might be surprised. Likewise, if I were hosting a website out of my home, take another as to what OS I would be using. Again, you might be surprised...

I find it hard to grasp that no one has thought about the bandwidth needed to do this - the basic problem with 'the cloud'. It also assumes that no one suffers from metered bandwidth, or perhaps that the meter clicks very very slowly.

It seems that every story I read (up to about 15 thus far) about the announcement makes the entire thing more and more grandiose.

I think that for the foreseeable future, not much wll change, and that the major impact will be netbooks. Microsoft can kiss them goodbye, right now. But for everything else, I don't think so.

Uh...

How much bandwidth do you think email and documents take there, bud?

Ya.. or better yet.. When this happens down the street.. 8 hours of NO CLOUD!! no office = no work done.

11:30 am:

There are currently 11+ DS3s down hard in the Los Angeles and Pomona area due to an four (4) Verizon OC-48s down hard in the Oxnard/Thousand Oaks area. AnyMedias LTIB, LTIC and LQIB as well as DSLAMs NQIA and NQIB are in peril as a result of this. We are escalating with Verizon of whom has no ETA at this time. -

Google Gears.

That's why Google Gears can already store things locally and they can be uploaded to central storage later.

MS is making a new browser that uses the web as the patform. Anyone seen thiS? http://research.microsof...res/gazelle-062909.aspx

Microsoft has had a chance to lead in this for the last 15 years, but instead chose to only update when forced. I doubt that Gazelle will be much more than the minWin flap was about a year ago.

The web is the platform, nothing new here. The OS is insignificant. HTML 5 is revolutionary. Palm gets it with the Pre. Google gets it too and has a top notch standards based browser in Chrome.

Now they need to guarantee there is an underlying platform on which it can run and take advantage of the hardware acceleration for things like Canvas, Canvas 3D, Video, etc... The only thing i see standing in the way of this revolution is giving application publishers a means of protecting their crown jewels.

"HTML 5 is revolutionary."

Now if only Apple and Google would stop trying to block the HTML 5 video spec from specifying an OSS codec (Ogg Theora) instead of a patent encumbered, proprietary codec (H.264), we'd all be much closer to a spec that might actually be useful.

Source

Leave it to Apple and Google to choose closed, proprietary standards over open standards... ;)

Google is against it simply because it does not scale (there is that magic word again) to meet their needs. Google could care less what format is used, so long as it provides the quality and size constraints they are after. I did not read up on what Apples concerns were....probably the same; Quicktime supports several formats, adding an open format would not impact them in any way.

Curious...what format does Microsoft support in HTML 5? Oh yeah...they are off playing with their non standard, proprietary, patent encombered, Silverturd in their proprietary web idea, and can not support the standards based features all the other browsers currently support. Funny, the worlds largest software company can not support a few simple HTML tags.

Contrary to what you are trying to say, h.264 is not a Google or Apple proprietary technology. It is actually a "real" ISO standard; no one got paid to vote for it.

*laughing*

You are by far the biggest idiot ever conceived.

"Contrary to what you are trying to say, h.264 is not a Google or Apple proprietary technology. It is actually a "real" ISO standard; no one got paid to vote for it."

1.) I never said it was property of Google or Apple...did I? Hmmm? No? More FUD BS form the fathead then, eh? I said it was patented and proprietary. I did *not* attribute those patents to anyone.

2.) I will do so now: The licensing of H.264 is managed by the MPEG LA consortium and in order to *use* that format, you must *pay* licensing fees to them. Huh...sound like a free and open standard to you? Me either. In fact, there's no indication from the MPEG LA that they intend to cap their fees if this becomes the codec of choice meaning they could, at will, decide to raise it to whatever they want.

" Funny, the worlds largest software company can not support a few simple HTML tags."

3.) Totally irrelevant, but since you brought it up: The "worlds largest software company" (I can only assume you mean Microsoft if your ignorant ranting is at all consistent) isn't supporting an un-finalized, likely to change (since those involved cannot seem to agree on anything) web standard that's been "in process" for years. Imagine that...

"Google could care less what format is used, so long as it provides the quality and size constraints they are after. I did not read up on what Apples concerns were....probably the same; Quicktime supports several formats, adding an open format would not impact them in any way."

The patent licensing requirements mean that H.264 codecs can't be freely redistributed, meaning folks like Mozilla and other Open Source browsers are locked out. Opera also objects because of the high licensing fees. The only reason Apple and Google are for H.264 is because they know they can afford it and know the other's cannot afford it, or simply cannot make use of it due to the licensing itself. Simple as that.

Nice about-face on patented, license-ridden tech. For my next trick, I'll argue in favor of Apple and nazi-FOSS attitudes so you can do another about-face and tell us all how bad Apple and FOSS are. Man, you crack me up.

There is only one person who can even attempt to follow the nonsense you are spilling out....and that would be you. I see you quoted Ars Technica without giving proper credit. Here is the link for those following at home: http://arstechnica.com/o...-video-codec-debate.ars

Here is the section PC_Tool conveniently ignores about the real reasons why Google and Apple are shying away from it:

"...Apple objects to Ogg Theora, claiming that the lack of known patents on Theora doesn't rule out the threat of submarine patents that could eventually be used against adopters. Apple is also concerned about the lack of widespread support for hardware-based Theora decoding, a factor that diminishes the format's viability on mobile devices. Google shares Apple's skepticism about the potential of Theora in the marketplace. The search giant claims that Theora's lack of quality relative to H.264 will make it an impractical choice for large-scale streaming video services such as YouTube.

Obtaining a license for H.264 from MPEG LA doesn't guarantee complete immunity from patent infringement liability, though. Although it is generally assumed that MPEG LA controls all of the relevant intellectual property pertaining to H.264 implementations, there is still the possibility that a third-party which is not a member of the consortium has a broad patent covering related compression technology that it can independently enforce against MPEG LA licensees.

Although Theora is not known to infringe any patents, critics fear that enhancing it to make it competitive with the most modern and efficient codecs will greatly increase its exposure to infringement risks. Some critics even contend that it's not possible to advance Theora without inevitably hitting a patent wall.

Another licensing issue that is often overlooked is the ambiguity of MPEG LA's future patent royalty collection plans. MPEG LA has established broadcast fees that licensees will be required to pay for distributing free (or ad-supported) streaming video content on the Internet. These fees will not be instated until the end of 2010, when the second H.264 licensing period goes into effect. The language used in the current license treats Internet streaming just like over-the-air television, implying that the licensees will have to pay broadcast fees per-region. That could prove to be extremely costly for Internet video providers who make their content available around the world.

MPEG LA has provided no guidance, clarification, or insight into what the broadcast licensing fees will look like. When asked directly about the issue, MPEG LA representatives say that they haven't even decided yet themselves. The worry is that H.264 licensing for content distributors could potentially become too costly to sustain widespread use for streaming Internet video."

So in other words, those with a clue, unlike PC_Tool, made an educated decision about it. Personally, i would love to see a non-patent encombered Video technology used, but unfortunately, that seems impossible at this time. Sorry PC_Tool, you fail yet again. Everyone is laughing at your feeble attempts to discredit me. I know i am.....

*laughing*

What's funny, is you'd take Google and Apple at their word (some of it might hold a grain of truth after all, since that's the best way to obfuscate the "whole truth"), but if it were Microsoft?

Heh...

You'd be all over them like white on rice.

What you're failing to recognize (shocking, isn't it? Don't worry, I was counting on it) is that I really couldn't care less about this codec issue. I am merely exposing your hypocrisy.

Patents, for the good of Microsoft? Evil™.

Patents, for the good of Apple? Good™.

So it's OK Apple uses H.264 in HTML 5? How about Microsoft using MP3 in OOXML?

Google Search on BN providing examples of the OOXML crowd up in arms over this: http://www.google.com/se...mp;aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Groklaw link: http://www.groklaw.net/a...story=20080310153345250

(Since you apparently can't actually look at the URL for the source).

Ya know, I bet "those following at home" can actually follow links too, ya know?

Now, I know you're going to call this all off-topic, but it is merely an example of the hypocrisy of those who despise Microsoft for the use of patented tech while supporting Apple's use of such tech, which is completely relevant to any post you make as it describes you to a tee. While you were not present under your current username at the time, I am quite certain during this entire circus that you were right there with them.

"So it's OK Apple uses H.264 in HTML 5?"

Show me where I said it is "OK". You are making stuff up as usual to satisfy your fetish for trolling.

"...it is merely an example of the hypocrisy of those who despise Microsoft for the use of patented tech while supporting Apple's use of such tech, which is completely relevant to any post you make as it describes you to a tee."

Again, Libel. Show me where is said i like Apple, or any company using patented software? IMO, all software patents are bad and should be abolished. And while we are at it, Copyright should be rolled back to the very short duration it originally was. And, DRM sucks plain and simple.

@PC_Tool vs Fatty
Well, actually he is somehow right , at least in one point.
Let aside the fact that Bill started his business selling thin-air-nothing to IBM (remember, they had absolutely nothing when they signed the contract ?), the whole MS history is filled with one particular pattern: they always seemed to be extremely late on certain markets/trends, they always seemed to be inovating while in fact steeling technology from others, they ALWAYS presented already known things/technology as their hard worked/brand new/shiny/revolutionary/you-name-it product. In case they can't really inovate, they try to buy the originator of the technology. In case they can't buy, they "invent" some alternate technology which they introduce as "new revolution". Or they simply try to "insert" themselves virus-like inside the body of that particular technology (Take for example - and I'm pretty sure you will know exactly what I'm talking about if you know as much history as you pretend - the windowing system, the mouse, (MS-DOS) Stacker, Plan9/Word, dBase/FoxBase/FoxPro, IE/Netscape, Java vs Java (!!!), Silverlight. I chose to "mix" names of both sides just to make it more fun to you. As I said, I expect you to know exactly what I'm talking about)

Unfortunately everybody ended doing it. Today everybody has a little something borrowed from the neighbor :-)

Ok, so you are not Bill's fan. You would use a Mac for Photoshop/Illustrator and a Linux (?) for a home server. But you already declared yourself as a Google-all-the-way fan. You just happened to start with a small disappointment :-)

In the end really, I don't care too much. All I care is to have all the applications I need in a single place, uncluttered, accessible. Let them all kill each other. If this will lead to a better Joe-the-average experience when it comes to computers, so be it. Google wants a bone ? Well,

[...]
Money, its a crime.
Share it fairly but dont take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise its no surprise that they're
Giving none away.
[...]

Aren't we all disappointed in some way or another ? :-)

@fatty:

You are defending the use of a patented codec.

How in God's name or anyone else's is that *not* "saying it is OK"??

Oh, right... The only reason you're defending it is because Apple is pushing it...not because the codec is "OK"...my bad.

"IMO, all software patents are bad and should be abolished. "

Criminal stupidity. Nice.

"Copyright should be rolled back to the very short duration it originally was. "

Holy Crap! I actually agree with you on this one. Someone sound the Horn, the world's gonna end!

Try to contain your enthusiasm. As has been mentioned, the big missing piece is an office suite. Google Docs doesn't count. Neither does OpenOffice. And that's just the big piece. Will Apples make an iTunes for Chrome OS? Will I be able to sync my Blackberry? At the moment we don't even have Adblock for Chrome. So there's a lot missing but at least we know that Google has a history of doing stuff right.

The missing piece has been a standards based solution for rendering directly to the browser...Canvas solves that problem. When Google shows the HTML 5 based Docs....it will be very clear the world has changed.

"When Google shows the HTML 5 based Docs....it will be very clear the world has changed."

Look like fatty is using his magic crystal ball again...

How are you not a billionaire with the amazing talent you posses of being able to predict the future??

I do all of these things in Linux , so wtf are you talking about?

"Look like fatty is using his brain again..."

fixed that for you.

"Looks like fatty utterly failed to use his brain again..."

T,FTFY.

Fun game. Next!

You are right PC_Tool, it would make zero sense for Google to support HTML 5 in their products. Their business is not dependent on open web standards at all.

You see, three posts in a row, substituing a few words here and there, to insult the above poster.

You totally messed it up man. ;)

I can't wait to see all the advertisements in my OS.

Once upon a time, Netscape was going to make an OS thatwould bury Windows.

What benefits will this have over something like Ubuntu? DirectX support?

mmh...another Linux distro. I don't know about that.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows, but he's not telling anyone.

At this juncture we don't enough about this damn thing to even guess what this OS will do. We can't even say what it might be. Only time will tell the story, but I'll bet it didn't make Ballmer's day.

Google has a great deal of what makes the world go round, it's that green stuff. If you have enough of it, you can do pretty much whatever you please.

Since "Toolie" has an agenda in all this, I take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

this should be good

...and just what do you imagine my agenda is there, sparky? There are at most 3 comments in this topic that are even remotely relevant to the actual topic...Yours ain't one of them. I offered my opinions on why I think it will fail and provided reasoning as to what I believe they should have done differently to not only prevent that, but to dominate.

So really... do tell. What's my "agenda"? I think we can all guess pretty accurately at yours...

Whether with intent or not Betanews has essentially turned their website over to you sparkless. Any site you'd run I don't care to visit. So this is my last comment on Betanews and my last visit. Don't think it hasn't been a little slice of heaven, cause it hasn't.

so long, doubt you'll be missed

*laughing my a** off*

Too funny.

Any notice he somehow managed to totally *not* answer the question? Hmmm....

Too late. They screwed this up with Google Docs.

GMail was revolutionary. It forced everyone else to play catch-up. Google Docs? Not so much. Formatting? Scripting? Nope. They needed to make Docs *better* than the rest...not a distant follower.

Had they kept with the "tradition" of GMail, they could have hooked 90% of what most users *do* on their PCs. Email, browsing, document editing, etc...

From there, it's a simple step to insert the Chrome Browser as your "desktop" (instant access to your most used apps). Once you've got them on that, who cares what is powering it?

They could have snuck up on OSX/Windows and pulled the carpet out from under them without so much as a whimper.

Actually they are going to tie the OS to the browser. I imagine, if they are fair, the EC will get it's panties all tied up by them doing this.

Indeed, EC fines in 3...2...1...

I can see it now.... EU: You are illegally tying that OS to your Browser. Unbundle it now or ELSE!!! Lol.

they changed their minds. they want google to give an option of the OS that comes with thier browser ;)