Definitely not. But it would change OS experience.

I don't know if it'll change Linux or not. But it definitely is not what I was picturing as an OS. The instant on 5-7 sec boot time does remind me of Asus Express Gate. However when I had my old Asus motherboard I did not use the feature as I usually left PC suspended and ready to resume with the touch of a key.

They have the nerve to call this an OS? This is striped down linux kernel running the Chrome browser...

on limited hardware too.....

Besides GNDN

What was the point to the youtube video?

I am sure it will give me all the power I need to run steam based games. Can't wait to see that interact with L4D2.

So I buy my new computer. I save 200 bucks by not purchasing an OS. I come home and turn it on and plug the internet in (which I used for games and little else) and wait for it to bridge the gaps and make my NIC card understand it need to connect to the internet and get a copy of Google chrome OS???

I can just see it now overloading my computer with useless garbage when I search for practical information.

I am waiting in anticipation

Don't worry, someone will figure out how to get Wine running on it. Last I checked TF2 ran beautifully, not sure about post-Orange-Box Source engine games (L4D L4D2), but last I checked DX9 support was still a work in progress but I wouldn't be surprised if they were running acceptably well soon enough.

Of course Chrome OS is clearly targeted at people who simply use their PC for the Internet, and perhaps those who only use their PC for things that can be done through the Internet (Word processing/spreadsheets can be done in Google Docs and similar tools, collaboration will be possible with Google Wave, etc). For gamers, clearly a more "complete" OS is required and so we are not the target market.

Also you seem to misunderstand how Chrome OS is installed. First of all, Google is looking to distribute it on netbooks you buy, just like Windows and Linux are currently. So you'd buy a netbook and Chrome OS is already on it. There are also some interesting sounding mechanisms in place to combat malware and file corruption to keep the system bootable, so you won't find yourself having to reinstall the OS (which isn't possible anyway with how they're doing it).

If YOU want to install it, first of all there is a strict set of hardware supported (like how Apple does OS X) which isn't a problem for netbook manufacturers since they're only gonna put Chrome OS on netbooks that support it anyway. Secondly Chrome OS builds as a raw disk image, so you basically would overwrite an empty hard disk with the data and ta-da... Chrome OS is installed. Currently the build process also supports building as a VMDK VMWare hard disk image, and from there you can convert it to a number of disk formats or use it in a number of virtual machine products to try it out (FYI I have had no success in VirtualBox getting any of 5 different builds to work, despite others who claim they have).

Not sure what you mean about "overloading my computer with useless garbage". It will do that no more than any other web browser. In fact, largely other than a disk cache and cookies and other browser data, and the occasional OS update, I don't think there will really be much it writes to disk at all. Since the concept is that the target market just uses the Internet, you'd store your data in "the cloud".

There is mention of user documents though, so there will probably be some sort of mechanism to "backup files locally" or download files so you can use them with the upload mechanism in some websites (and yes, I'm sure devs can install packages too).

about security, all data on cloud encrypted, most app would be host by google (gmail,doc). so the big guy himself hosted our data and guaranteed its safety, from whom? obviously not from him.

google+obama, bye2 to privacy. let's just implant a tracking device into our heads instead.

You do that. Meanwhile, with Chrome OS, you are free to use web apps made by whichever big souless corporation you want, not just Google. In fact screenshots I've seen show Yahoo and Microsoft apps in there as well.

s/you are/I am/

I'm glad you can't edit posts anymore. Now it's just like Slashdot! You make a typo and it stays there forever.

BTW I forgot to mention in my NON-SARCASTIC post (I was actually serious!) how Google is heading the Apple way in going for the clueless of users IN THEIR MARKETING: people who actually SHUT DOWN THEIR PC in 2009 when they SHOULD ALWAYS put their laptop (or desktop w/UPS) on standby or hibernate if battery-source isn't attached. There are no more memory leaks in Windows... Any stability issue can be resolved by taskmgr and killing some offending process. Haven't had a reason to restart (other than for updates) in YEARS.

Google Chrome "booting" in 10 seconds MY ARSE -- it's simply in permanent STANDBY mode.

How ignorant can people be to take Google Chrome's presentation seriously when most time spend is on a Windows feature existing since oh..year 2000 or so. "If you are dumb..err impatient like me, you keep hitting the browser icon again and again wanting to get online". Huh?? Why the HELL would I close my browser if I KNOW I will need it the moment I get back to the computer? And why won't I put it in my startup folder so it auto-magically loads (ONCE) on RARE system reboots??

Google's key "feature" is the biggest joke of all. Takes 2 minutes to pre-configure a netbook running Win7 to be "permanently on" (you can call it "off" while it's technically in standby eating little power -- just like your TV) and "always have your default browser running in the background". THAT is Google's key differentiating "OS" feature? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Seriously, guys, Google is about to lose THE HOUSE if they don't start to IMPRESS ME, PERSONALLY, right away. Gmail and search -- that's it. That's all they've got right now. (Well, Google Voice too, but that's 99% the work of a company they bought -- before they bought them). I can already feel the Google bubble about to burst...

"it's simply in permanent STANDBY mode."
+1, i would put it as snapshots on their secondary ram a.k.a solid-state disks (dumb terminal huh?) xD

turn on, surf, ajax, turn off. where's the fun, no screensaver? no defrag (lol)? real games? alt-tab (porns)?

Linux is a successful server OS but fail big time as a desktop.

strip down Arch linux (or any lightweight distros) to barebone and install basic desktop+Chrome haleluya, your custom built Chrome OS 'chrome leopard', basically chrome is just a kiosk/terminal OS nothing more.

This is even less than that..

This is an "OS" that is more like "Google Branded Splashtop/Expressgate" rather than any sort of actual OS

Its not gonna run on real hardware, its designed around instant boot on low end nettop/laptop/netbook/misc arm based hardware..

Anyone remember the SUN "experiments" into thin clients? this is the same deal, the only difference is they will be trying to sell these low power email/etc devices to mom and pop and granny rather than to Corporate IT, and since they dont require a mothership on location, they could do reasonably well..

STill this is not an OS release any more than Think's GoodOS is an OS.. I mean if we wanna get right down to it. Shell=chrome.exe on windows with hardware capable of proper standby/hibernation would be exactly the same as what we have seen here.. lots of marketing spam, not alot of substance.. What I do not understand is why it took them so long to poop this one out of the labs, the changes to chrome are insignifcant, and the creation of a slimmed down bootable linux these days are trivial.

I am seak...seak...seak and tired hearing the last 15 years on how linux is going to rule the desktop market one way or another.
It's nearly 15 years guys and linux has < 1 percent of the market.It's over and done. Again, more than 15 years and

In the same way that Mac OS changed BSD. Not really...

I really cannot fathom why anyone would want to use this OS; there's not a single thing it does better than Windows or any modern version of Linux, and a whole lot of things they do that this doesn't

It boots a lot faster, for one thing. I can imagine for people who just use their computer for the Internet, it could be all they ever needed or wanted in an OS.

Who cares? That's like basing a car purchase based solely on how quickly the heater warms up

"If the cloud goes down, you're going to be affected no matter what machine you're on; Chrome OS or not."

Uh, no. No I won't. "The Cloud" should go the way of VRML.

Yes, you will. The fact that you posted your views on the Internet claiming it wouldn't affect you at all is proof that it would. Internet goes down, you can't post claiming it wouldn't affect you, so it affected you.

Whenever MY internet goes down I know that about 75% of the things I like to do on my computer aren't possible until it comes back up (web surfing, chatting, youtube, e-mail, multiplayer games) and out of the remaining 25%,a sizable chunk of it was acquired online some time in the past. The remaining list is pretty short considering I have 1.5tb of disk space at my command (single player games, coding... uh, music, videos...)

The "cloud" is not the internet itself, but I'm glad to know you assume you are the standard for all user activity.

Scratch previous comments regarding the uselessness of this OS. I simply wasn't creative enough.

This will work perfectly as a VM (Well, for me, anyway). I have VBox set up on my work system (seamless) so that I can be connected to my Work Network (host) and our "contractor" DSL (guest) at the same time. (Helps me get around the speed limitations of our corporate network for file transfers and obviously, bypassing the proxy is a bonus).

This would be perfect for that...so long as Firefox makes a version of their browser to run on it. ;)

PC_Tool "This will work perfectly as a VM (Well, for me, anyway). I have VBox set up on my work system (seamless) so that I can be connected to my Work Network (host) and our "contractor" DSL (guest) at the same time. (Helps me get around the speed limitations of our corporate network for file transfers and obviously, bypassing the proxy is a bonus)"
Now that's just showing off.

No, it's not.

Stating this is running on a $4500 Dell workstation, with 2 monitors, and that I have a brand-new 17" MBP (running Win7 natively) sitting next to those two monitors would be showing off...and I would never do that.

Neither would I mention that all of this is sitting on my desk @ work while I surf the web.

I might mention how I love my job, though. :)

Firefox cannot make a version to run on it.. since "it" is a browser not an Operating System..

You would need to install X, and a real window manager and then add firefox to it.. but at that point its no longer gonna be ChromeOS is it?

No it will be a fork, but who cares? It's all in the spirit of Linux. Make your own flavor.

I love how they advertise games on that thing and then demonstrate some Flash based chess game :)

I somehow actually agree with some people here I *never* agree with. Google Chrome OS will be a complete failure. UTTER FAILURE.

There is absolutely NO market segment for it.

Even the crappiest, slowest, junkiest netbooks in 2011 (when this OS becomes available for mass consumption)..and later..will be able to run Windows 7 (or 8) BEAUTIFULLY. Cost to OEMs Oh, probably $20, for some lite version, maybe even $10 or free for Microsoft-ad-sponsored versions. See, Google isn't really giving it out for free - Google hopes to make A TON of money on their google services. Heck, we pay as a SMALL BIZ about $2000/mo for Google ads... I'm basically SPONSORING this crappy OS.

And see, now, Microsoft can do exactly the same... They can give you..quite easily..a free OS while FORCING YOU to use Bing and Office Online as defaults, and possibly showing you Microsoft ads EVEN IF YOU'RE USING GOOGLE SERVICES, a-la proxifying your connection. And they CAN get away with it. Why? Cuz you paid NOTHING for the OS...

So..a smart person will surely see, that under these scenarios, NOBODY will take a LINUX BASED OS that limits him to VERY FEW HARDWARE DEVICES and very very few SOFTWARE OPTIONS and very very few INTEROPERABILITY WITH HIS JOB'S DOCUMENTS/EMAIL SYSTEM which naturally runs best on full-blown MS Office products, or if you're really cheap, online Office products...

In no way at all can Google win this battle, EVEN for the tiniest of niche markets. Microsoft will eat them alive IN NO TIME.

Android will fail as well. Windows Mobile 8 or 9 with PERFECT integration with the desktop OS products and billions of software and hardware combinations will completely annihilate all other mobile OSs. Garner can go screw with their idiotic predictions for Android being king in 5 years. Windows Mobile will have AT LEAST 50% of the smartphone market by the end of 2014... Apple won't even have 10%... Even the dumbest of people will eventually realize Apple is mostly hype.

-----------
"They can give you..quite easily..a free OS while FORCING YOU to use Bing and Office Online as defaults, and possibly showing you Microsoft ads EVEN IF YOU'RE USING GOOGLE SERVICES, a-la proxifying your connection. And they CAN get away with it. Why? Cuz you paid NOTHING for the OS..."
-----------

Agreed + I don't have a problem with that even though Google is my default search engine.

-----------
"In no way at all can Google win this battle, EVEN for the tiniest of niche markets. Microsoft will eat them alive IN NO TIME."
-----------

So true, Chrome OS is already absolute....Google must be on something if they think they can win this and take over the desktop with this so called "OS". Steve Ballmer is probably having the best laugh ever and he probably is still giggling. This is going to be a complete failure....(and I personally hope so). I have always backed Google up for every project (mostly Android) but this Chrome OS is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Seriously, think about all the techies our there. I would feel completely restrained/confined with this.

-------
Android will fail as well. Windows Mobile 8 or 9 with PERFECT integration with the desktop OS products and billions of software and hardware combinations will completely annihilate all other mobile OSs.
-------

I have to disagree with you on that one. I personally believe Android will succeed in the very near future.

Don't feed him. He's the cosmos's response to fatty in an attempt to balance the universe. Both are the absolute extremes of their bias, completely out of touch with reality and thus, completely irrelevant.

I fail to see how being extremely sarcastic with no specific examples whatsoever acts as an actual argument

deleted...

They are not trying to take over the desktop.. they are trying to revenue share /monetize low profit margin cheap hardware..

The interwebs (and even pre-interwebs) is paved with the "thin client/hosted app" devices that where gonna be everywhere! (Audrey anyone?)

What google is selling is 300$ netbook/nettop (or even cheaper) that they will be spamming full of their ads.. (even if its google its still spamming ads) and collecting and selling all that lovely data on what you do, what you store in google docs, what you watch on youtube, etc..

The way they win over oems (at least until this exercise flops like all the rest before it for the same reasons) is by sharing the ad revenue with acer, and asus, and all the rest of the "me too cheap hardware sellers"

THe problem is consumers are not buying.. they wont be buying.. they didnt buy it in the past they wont buy it in the future

"Will Google Chrome OS change Linux?"

Hard to say... especially since we know so little about it.

Basically, it seems like they're trying to say that they simply "got rid of the OS"... when all it really seems like they're doing is hiding it and running their browser in kiosk mode.

I am excited. I am also wary of Chrome OS.

As an individual who works with lots of Adobe applications, I am happy that Adobe is working with Google. This can mean any number of things. I can see the attractiveness (for Adobe) of putting their application suite on the cloud (piracy would probably be cut drastically with a service that is completely online). But if this is the case...how in the world am I going to use my Wacom graphic tablet with Chrome OS?

Or who am I paying to store all of my files if my external drives won't work? Right now I can pay $100 and have half a Tb of storage for life (Does Google really want me to start paying $10 a month ($120 per year) for storage? Again, I can see the advantages for businesses operating in the cloud. But come on, do they really expect the external hard drive makers to fold up shop and go along with Chrome OS?

Do they even expect you to have a DVD drive? If so, what will it do in this environment?

If Google simply says this OS just isn't for me, what will I do? Keep paying higher and higher amounts of money for what will then be categorized as a 'specialty' computer? You know that prices will go up as the manufacturers start selling less and less.

This is obviously better for cyber cafes than for computer-literate people.

Will this change distributions based on the Linux kernel? The answer is not really.

This reminds me of what the Xandros distribution was trying to do on the original Asus Eee PC: Quick Launch, limited and easy interface, and easy access to the internet. Those machines are likely running Ubuntu Netbook Remix or Windows XP right now. Most people are afraid of change.

I can see more user-friendly interfaces on top of Linux and *BSD but this has been an ongoing battle. A lot of the people developing the current interfaces don't use them and can't see that they're not helping a lot.

Do I want to see everything from a limited browser window? No, especially when it's full screen and inflexible. Would grandma be less confused? Probably.

P.S.

Watch the fools try to "defend" their religion. Its worth a big laugh on just how deluded they prove themselves to be. Pay close attention to Tool. He's the biggest one of all.

As usual...you've got nothing to add to the topic but your anti-US yammering and personal attacks.

How clever...

For your next trick, post the link again. (Don't worry, I'd never ask you to do anything that required actual thought.)

No a lot of people don't need the latest and greatest. But then again, if Google is essentially going to control what you can install and what is supported on your computer, how many people will actually want to give up that complete control?

This OS essentially only works when you are connected to the internet. That works really great if your computer sits on a desk 24/7 and remains always connected to the internet. Most people like netbooks and laptops because of their portability. What is one going to do when they are away from home and want to use their new Chrome OS Laptop. They will not enjoy the experience for long when they realize how expensive it gets to pay for internet access everywhere you go to just use your laptop. That is where this OS will fail.

"Nobody in the Q&A session is asking about local network presence/file sharing, etc..."

Nobody in the Q&A session was willing to point out the reality that people like to quietly keep local stashes of pr0n, pirated music, pirated movies, etc. Ask any computer repair tech what they routinely see filling half the hard drives that hit the bench. This is the biggest "user requirement" that will never get openly admitted in a focus group. Who's gonna want their contraband stored in the cloud?

"It currently doesn't support printing, but locally pluggable devices are recognized, and more are being added. (Nobody in the Q&A session is asking about local network presence/file sharing, etc...that's disappointing.)"

Yea, having no access to hardware peripherals is quite sad...

One question for Google, if I'm on a transpacific flight, can I use Chrome OS to do anything? There are not too many connections out in the middle of the ocean.

They mentioned that HTML 5 compatible applications would work without a connection. How specific to their brand of HTML 5 is what's unknown.

This is targeted for netbooks, which are themselves marketed as thin clients for Internet access, yes? Of course we geeks can put last-gen games on them and such that will still run great but it's not exactly what they were marketed for.

Anyways I'm sure in the coming weeks we'll see lots of "(So and so) ports (famous application) to Chrome OS" on Digg and Slashdot and reddit.

It's part of the spec, there is no "Google brand" HTML 5. The only ones I've known to pull that sort of thing are Microsoft.

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#offline

Target market? What...grandparents? Only if they make a skype web-app, at least for my grandparents.

I don't ever see this taking off. The only saving grace I could see was the possibility of more devices with Android apps, but...they killed that one. Now, I don't see any point to it at all...run the "web apps" on your phone and be done with it....

I think there can be quite a market. I'm sure a large percentage of internet users, have very little installed on their computers other than the os and web browser. For many it makes since to have a hardened internet terminal that can not be broken easily by non technical users. If boots quickly and loads up a web browser from where they can access cloud apps that they do not have to manage and is stable, it can sell.

"I'm sure a large percentage of internet users, have very little installed on their computers other than the os and web browser."

I believe this is a myth. That doesn't mean that the things they do cannot be done in a "web-app", I just do not believe that there are enough of them to cover all the bases....and there are a lot of bases.

I'm not saying it will never be ready, but I do not believe it's anywhere near close right now. There just doesn't seem to be much of a "cloud-based" software ecosystem out there.

Anything to back this belief up with, Tool?

PC_Tool "I don't ever see this taking off. "
Wrong, the O/S is to get you on-line, all else is in the clouds. Google will succeed, as will numerous versions of Linux. It's the time of the small O/S, bit like a browser, we'll be switching and b****ing about this O/S or that. I believe it was Shakespeare who said, just get me on-line and my stuff will be remembered for ever.

Sorry, my bad. I forgot it was the Year of the Linux Desktop.

What was I thinking...

Linux is a perfect, shining example of how 'too much choice' is Bad™.

I'll have to disagree. Most people I know, and no, most are not geeks, usually have EVERYTHING installed in their computers.

For instance, I'd prefer the safety of my own computer, which I'm constantly giving maintenance, instead of some (extremely big) service that could just go down. I'd use the Web as a secondary solution to my problems, not the default.

Epic FAIL

an OS that has no hardware supported local apps with any real power
an OS that way too depended on "CLOUD"
an OS that can do 1/1000th of a real computer can do
an OS that can't be used on 99% of the computers in the market
an OS that basically is just a browser
an OS that can probably work with 1/1000th of the peripherals
an OS that has no real games available

Speed? what speed? you can turn it on in 10 seconds means nothing when you will never be able to finish any work that are remotely professional.

security? what security? keep your data encrypted so you dont need to worry when you lost it? how useful is that when you put nearly all your data in the hand of some big guy and up in the cloud, security? lol

simplicity? what simplicity? smartphones are simple enough, why would I buy a $400 computer to just do Internet? Heck, even Nokia N900 probably let me do more than a google chrome OS powered computer.

I think that the concept is realistic, and worth going for. Here, I'm talking about the concept of less boot-up time due to less resources. I do, however, think (like most people) that things SHOULD be stored on a hard-drive (locally Google, locally). In many places, the internet is not fast enough to keep fetching files that are stored on the internet.

Furthermore, it would get pretty boring if EVERYTHING I did was done in a browser.

Nice concept. Poor dream.

Well and good for a thin client. I'm sure my mother, who just uses Facebook and Google Mail, would be a perfect target audience, or as an "appliance OS"... but if you plan on doing a lot of more advanced stuff, sounds fairly useless as a main PC.

After watching the video above i am even less impressed.

"Most of the system is in a writable partition, and that's scary" - that comment was made about common OSes (they are working from writable partition, and that's scary). ChromeOS kernel resides on read-only partition.

Sounds like a big stinker of a OS. Not like anyone would want it anyway. Everything is web apps? Thats insane! And who cares how fast it boots. Not like i turn my pc on more then once a month anyway. Who do they really think will buy this? Actually dumb people and know nothings. If i cant install my own software it's useless. Where not talking about the iphone where apps are excepted. This is a netbook or pc arena, we all have a expectation of what we want.

MAJOR FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well said

Who do I trust?
Apple, who wants to control everything about how their products look, feel and act, and has little interest in the corporate world or gaming.
Microsoft, which continually uses a document format to push pretty much every other software they make down our throats, but has one of the best gaming platforms out there.
or Google, who's philosophy sounds good, likes to support open source, which IMO is the best long term solution for most users as it keeps our data ours. But they run it on a privacy wasteland, you have no idea what content is yours and who might get their fingers inside it.

Right now I definitely lean towards Google, running on top of Microsoft. If I were to have one company "do everything" I'd still have to lean towards MS for now.

Apple as a company I simply cannot stand, however I recognize the quality in their defined markets. No company should have to rely on such marketing bulls*** to get people to use their products, and the quality of their software on 3rd party platforms is very low.

Oh and disclaimer for pc_tool, who thinks we need to tell people that these are our opinions. Apparently he presupposes that comments on sites are first deemed fact and that opinion should be asterisked.

"Oh and disclaimer for pc_tool, who thinks we need to tell people that these are our opinions. Apparently he presupposes that comments on sites are first deemed fact and that opinion should be asterisked."

You're not that stupid. You know the difference between a statement presented as fact and an opinion...you just don't like having your "opinions stated as fact" pointed out to you.

Poor baby. Let me get my violin out...

Hey, Tool;

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Hey, SJC:

Keep posting that lame link, man. It's the best argument you've got judging by the amount of times you post it...which is sad considering how incredibly wrong it is. :)

Heh... that link was a riot!

...except, I think I actually *do* own an Osmonds 8-track. =)

Well, I guess that explains a lot. :p

*glare* ;)

Oh, come on...admitting to owning an Osmonds 8-track?

Isn't that one of the cardinal sins or something???

Hey hey... I found it!

Right next to Kiss Double Platinum and Best of Styx... oh, and my 2-XL tapes! That's gotta count for something, right?

Eh... too late for a do-over. Guess I gotta live with it. ;)

You're taking to someone who owns several victrolas and has a "saferoom" in the basement specifically designed that should the house flood/burn to the ground...the record collection will survive.

I think I've got you beat on that one. :P

Let's see who this hurts most: Apple or Linux or Microsoft. Poor those with little market share+some taken by Chrome won't be happy.

The next 10 years will be exciting, indeed :) Not sure who said that...Gates? Jobs? Ballmer?

This should be interesting.

I'm very close to using 100% web apps now, so I was considering creating a "web OS", by taking a standard install of Ubuntu & removing all bundled desktop apps, except for Firefox & Chrome. A ChromeOS install would make things considerably easier (& more fun, since ChromeOS is something new to play with), so hopefully they will have a beta to try very soon.

Curious how you can use documents via web apps? I have tried ever so often and the experience is barely equivalent to notepad.

The guy explicitly said that if you're a lawyer and working with documents 8 hours/day, ChromeOS is not for you.

I tried Google Docs once. I prefer having documents on my local computer (so when my HD eventually crashes, my lack of backups will doom me, whee... yeah I think I should do backups more often. Anyway...) so I don't use it much, but it wasn't bad. They're aiming for a real word processor experience.

Yeah when you have sensitive legal documents I guess storing them on the cloud using Google Docs or a similar web app isn't really an option, heh.

the success of an OS depends on the software availability around it. If google want to take on MS on a real computer, flash webapps or whatever they can come up with, will not do much more than Linux can.

of course, if google is targeted as a limited usage device other than a full featured computer, then it would be much easier.

Just a reminder, a netbood IS a full featured computer. To treat it as anything less, would be a big mistake.

Most netbooks sold now are full computers, and priced like one ($300+, the same price as a cheap 15"). When netbooks were created, they were Linux only and meant to be cheaper than a normal computer. There is an unmet demand for a web-based, Linux, non-intel, actually cheap netbook ($100 or $150 is the magic price price point). Something cheap enough to take to the beach, have one in the kitchen, buy for a child, etc. 95% of computer use is for Word and online apps. With a good word processor, a cheap netbook will be an excellent second computer, not a laptop replacement the way that current ones have drifted into being.

Netbooks are ghetto computers that are small steps forward and large steps backward. They fail in several key areas:
- Processor power. Basics like watching video are painful at times.
- Keyboard size: You can't get around that using these things for an extended period of time will get aggravating.

I know of 4 coworkers that went netbook and months later say they regret it.

Might I suggest a compromise, say an aspire 1410, for $400? No need to run an older OS, decent performance in all areas, almost full functionality in ~3 pounds. Just needs the crapware taken off and it's a 5 star laptop, in my book.

I believe, GPU acceleration is going to help the performance. Besides, if it requires more power than a CPU can give, it's not web.

They guy said something about ensuring that all devices get full-sized keyboard. I don't know for sure, but he also said something about supporting all standard devices (which probably means that it would be possible to plug USB keyboard, i hope).

But the time will tell.

btw ...
whats the point in trying this OS on the VM???
its just google chrome by the looks of it.
if you want to try out the CHROME OS
just install chrome dev version i.e 4+
and you are ready to go
all the features listed work the same way.

Its like we just Boot into the browser

ThiS Cant be a operating system .
they gotta change tremendously to be called an OS

Finally a comment that hits the spot of why Google is developing this O/S.

I think that's the point. It's an OS for people who don't need anything more than a browser.

And it seems to be a bit different than the Chrome browser. First there are these popup panels at the bottom of the screen that stick with you no matter which tab you're in (IE im windows, notifications, etc). Then you can pin your favorite apps to tabs I guess (Chrome lets you "pin" tabs but it's not the same). As well as a sort of "Start Menu" with app icons in it.

Same browser at its root, but some things have a different focus (IE treating your computer as a window into the web, where the Chrome browser is just another program on your system).

At least that's how I see it.