Google Chrome OS... Worst idea by Google

[JECHO]

Okay so I'm sure we could all get into a huge debate about how good/bad the idea is but I just want to say a few simple things about why I think its the worst idea I have heard from Google so far...

1. A web based OS? Hmm... why don't we go back to the 90's when everyone was using dumb terminals and logging into mainframes? Oh wait, that's exactly what Google OS is doing.

2. All these years spent improving the speed of desktops/laptops and other hardware... Now we are going back to the stone age where pretty much no computing power is needed because everything is running off of External servers? That's a good idea.

3. Storing all personal/confidential information on the public internet? Really good idea, I'm sure there is nobody out there that will find a way to get access to it, regardless of how encrypted it is.

4. What happens when there's no internet connection? Even if all you want to do is work on a document or a power point, you wont be able to be because everything is saved to the internet. Unless of course Google plans to offer free wireless internet to the planet.


I'm not going to respond to any reply's to this thread because I don't really see the point, but If you've got something to say... Go for it.

Just in case you have been living under a rock the past few weeks, here is a video of Google's presentation on their newly announced OS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JyFbF7QFlY&feature=popt1cus0f

[emigrant]

+1

[kyuubi777]

-1 :p

[Pasdar]

-2

[vishzilla]

0

[toupeiro]

I don't see that much of an issue with it honestly. My only concern is that I want to take my DATA offline if necessary. I dont care about having pre-defined application repositories custom tested for the OS. In fact, isn't that basically what ubuntu offers? They aren't targetting hardcore gamers, they are targetting general use users, and its a perfect fit if you are looking for cross-spectrum basic functionality.

I guess I just lack the linus (the Peanuts character) syndrome when it comes to where my apps live and what they look like. I'm sorry, the web version of excel was really cool, and a long time coming. I'm not going to condemn it until I see it for myself. Face it, nothing like this has been done before on the scale they are trying it, so to pretend you know what this is going to be like, and to compare it to mainframes, is a pretty empty statement.

[emigrant]

-1 :p

-2

:mad:

for(;;){
++OPs_idea;
}

[Xbehave]

1. A web based OS? Hmm... why don't we go back to the 90's when everyone was using dumb terminals and logging into mainframes? Oh wait, that's exactly what Google OS is doing.
+0 nice attack but you don't actually mention why server side computing didn't take off. One of the major factors is the migration cost, this is null when dealing with new netbooks. A second is that users wanted control of their computers, but i will address that later*

2. All these years spent improving the speed of desktops/laptops and other hardware... Now we are going back to the stone age where pretty much no computing power is needed because everything is running off of External servers? That's a good idea.
-2. Server speed improves as fast if not faster than desktop speed, especially at google where they sacrifice reliability of hardware to allow for dirt cheap, damn fast hardware. The cost of a superserver+1000s of netbooks is less than that of 1000s of decent powered computers, cost of the final solution is very favourable for dumb client based computing. Additionally, by moving processing off the client you allow the client to be smaller, lighter, cheaper and have longer battery life, these are all very desirable attributes in the netbook market

3. Storing all personal/confidential information on the public internet? Really good idea, I'm sure there is nobody out there that will find a way to get access to it, regardless of how encrypted it is.
-1 People said the same thing about storing your data on computers, at the end of the day sacrificing security for usability is often worth it. More importantly google/most cloud providers are better at keeping joe blogs data private than joe blogs is, for most people the heavy sandboxing and impenetrability of chromeOS means their only risk is that
google will mess up, which is less likely than them messing up

4. What happens when there's no internet connection? Even if all you want to do is work on a document or a power point, you wont be able to be because everything is saved to the internet. Unless of course Google plans to offer free wireless internet to the planet.
-½ It has support for running your webapps offline so when your offline as long as you saved the file locally your fine, ofc because most stuff is hosted you may forget to keep a local copy of the app and program, so i will conced you a ½

*Most desktop users don't know care what goes on in their computer, for them handing over control of almost everything to google is advantageous, especially as google have no lock-in so users are free to migrate to a competitor should the ever emerge

total score: -3½ (uninformative rant)

[YosefKaro]

I was attempting to try out a compiled version of it on virtualbox. However, it is obvious that one has to have a wired internet connection in order to even log in to chromium os, that is, it requires your gmail account for user name. So because I use a broadband dongle, I can't even log in. Their goal is to get users from boot up to the internet as fast as possible; but what about all of the users that need to configure their internet or log on to their internet? This is my first issue with this new OS.

My second issue is that no one can just download it and use it on any computer. Maybe it can be tweaked to work on a given computer however, they are designing it so that you have to buy the specific hardware that they are designing it to work on.

I think that they have a good idea, but in actualizing this goal, it appears to me that they are borking it. That's just my opinion though.

-Yos

[arnab_das]

chrome os looks much like cloud computing to me. although it will bring much needed attention to the linux arena, i doubt if it'll stand the test of time.

[hobo14]

1. So...?
2. Their severs are using all that improved hardware performance.
3. We already do, and even data not stored online is not safe (eg. companies and governments lose laptops all the time)
4. This is the reason I won't be using it. My internet connection isn't fast or reliable enough.

[V for Vincent]

Then ignore it. If it fails, fine. Not like you'll be losing anything. If it's a success (in the niche market google is aiming for, apparently a lot of people simply disregard that), that means more linux users, which in turn could lead to better hardware support. Just wait and see instead of wasting your time ranting.

[BenAshton24]

I pretty much 100% agree with you... IMO cloud computing sucks unless it's solely for backup.

[vishzilla]

You never know. Google may re-write history ;)

[cb951303]

+1

there are ways to bring cloud computing advantages to the OS arena but a new web browser based OS is not one of them.

[3rdalbum]

I was attempting to try out a compiled version of it on virtualbox. However, it is obvious that one has to have a wired internet connection in order to even log in to chromium os, that is, it requires your gmail account for user name. So because I use a broadband dongle, I can't even log in.

Wait a second. If you are using a broadband dongle and trying to run Chrome OS in Virtualbox, then there's no problem. Because your host OS'es internet connection gets presented to the guest OS as a wired Ethernet connection.

[Elfy]

moved to recurring discussions with the other Google Chrome OS threads

[froggyswamp]

Google seems to take for serious the idea that there can't be any problems only when there's nothing underneath. Google also knows (but of course refuses to publicly acknowledge) that their OS can do much less than, say Ubuntu or windows 7. People who have brains understand that too. Because of that Google's trying (really hard) to imply that local storage and local applications are mostly a thing of the past and that most/many people use almost only the internet, which is a half-truth to say the least.
But why is Google going for such a crippled and slow solution (internet based apps are inherently slow for many reasons, even if they are cached locally using HTML5 stuff)?
- There is indeed a niche of users who'll go for that, but it's of course much smaller than Google's numbers - which is a typical marketing over-appreciation for a company who wanna sell its own stuff.
- I don't speak for Google but I'm pretty sure Google isn't satisfied (technologically) with the Linux desktop at different levels. Google even said it would provide a new windowing system for its Linux distro but it appears it didn't have the resources/time to provide the new windowing system (yet).
- Every corporation lives and dies by its shareholders and they always want more money, becoming a larger monopoly is the short road for easy money. ChromeOS is designed to do that by tightly locking in users into its products (Apple, Microsoft and others are doing this for ages).
- The fact that the OS is from Google and (the "fact" I heard that) Google will actually pay to hw manufacturers to ship it should help the Crippled OS get (little) more market share.
-The majority of (even netbook) users won't like it but Google isn't trying to be anything to anyone. That is, Crippled OS could be somewhat successful on netbooks but if it doesn't significantly change its policy it stands no chance to displace Microsoft or Apple on desktop PCs.
- Not to mention that technically a cloud based OS is old stuff which never lived up to its promise otherwise there wouldn't be 99% desktop users and (less than) 1% on the cloud. Back in the 90's even Sun Microsystems used to talk about how "The net is the computer" and other such cloud related bafflegab, but it didn't work cause a cloud based solution when actually implemented has more drawbacks then strong points, it's not practical especially as a desktop solution and (most) users don't and won't like it, but it seems Google will go even for the sake of those few percent because having a small market share is better than none.

[michaeldt]

A mobile phone is useless (as a phone) without signal, yet those are still a huge success. Chrome OS is designed for use where there IS an internet connection. Many netbooks these days, and probably many more in the future, have small Solid State Drives. The idea is to have an OS which can take up little room on your device and can still provide a wide variety of Web-orientated apps for doing what most people do on their PCs anyway.

If I think of what my wife does on her laptop, it's 99% reliant on having an internet connection. When the router dies, she doesn't use her laptop. And I know she is not alone. Many people I know only use their PC for connecting to the internet, so the whole idea of the OS being useless if there's no connection is pointless.

Yes Google will have to make sure that network connectivity is top notch and easy to use and setup right out of the box. Which is why it's currently still in testing and not ready for release.

[michaeldt]

- Every corporation lives and dies by its shareholders and they always want more money, becoming a larger monopoly is the short road for easy money. ChromeOS is designed to do that by tightly locking in users into its products (Apple, Microsoft and others are doing this for ages).

So umm, Google are locking you into using their products by, err, providing easy ways to migrate all your data AWAY from Google's apps?

http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=100458

Seriously, get a clue. Google doesn't lock you in with proprietary formats.
They provide easy ways to download all your email. You can bulk export all your Google docs in a variety of formats (including open formats). How exactly are google locking you in? By providing a free OS which you can easily remove and replace with something else?

Oh, and another thing...

Since the OS is open source, it's pretty easy for a competitor (MS or Apple) to develop competing "apps" which work seamlessly in Chrome OS.

[Bölvaður]

OPs opinions where debunked by the video he linked us to.... is what going on? This has to be trolling right?

Something is fishy, and I dont like the smell.

[terry@softreq.com]

I think browser based software is a good idea. Here's why:

1) Promotes "open source" competition. Nobody says you have to get Google Chrome. I'm sure other "free" open-source, web-based operating systems will be announced. (Why doesn't Ubuntu create a version? Just cut down a release to the bare minimum to launch a browser.

2) People think their information is "safe" on their own computer? Think again, Hackers will continue to find better ways to get the information off your computer or trap your keystrokes. There's nothing stopping a websites from offering far better encryption/security/policies than what is available now.

3) Storage. No reason why you couldn't store your info on a thumb drive, so that you take your information with you.

4) Stops the nuclear arms race.... So many people have to upgrade their systems to the latest quad-core, 4gig monsters in order to drag around these large operating systems. Who says you should be able to do everything you need to do with 256mb of memory and a 1ghz processor? If we had really efficient, small operating systems (like Google Chrome, which apparently is 1/60th the size of Windows 7), then hardware vendors could focus efforts on less expensive, more efficient processing (ie uses less energy and less heat). I could see kindle-like personal computers costing less than $200 that allow you to hook up to the internet anywhere.


So I see this all as very good. If I were Microsoft, I"d be very worried right now. Their model is based on delivering expensive software, whereas the future appears to be web-based and largely open source.

Also, the hardware manufacturers will take a hit. No need for quad-core, 4gb devices where most of the computing is just trying to keep hundreds of background tasks going. Instead, all efforts will be focused on a nice browser experience.

Just my $1,29's worth...

[newbuntuxx]

I agree with Terry.

People over look the fact that google chrome OS is: OPEN SOURCE. And if Bruce Lee was alive today he would say:

"Now you put open source software into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put open source software into a teapot, it becomes the teapot, you put open source software into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. Now open source software can flow, or it can crash....Be open source my friend!" ...not so funny..but you get the point!

You can mold Chrome OS into whatever you want! Change it so that instead of connecting to Google's servers on start-up, it connects to your PC at home! Program it so that instead of saving your data on google's servers, it saves them on your PC at home! No one will stop you.

Stop complaining and start coding people.

[Zoot7]

Ah... it's not even in Beta yet.
Give it until you see devices pop up with it before you decide it's crap or not. :p

[Dullstar]

Google's gone a little too far. It was great at a search engine and email provider. Everything else is becoming, well, bad idea.

[Dullstar]

I agree with Terry.

People over look the fact that google chrome OS is: OPEN SOURCE. And if Bruce Lee was alive today he would say:

"Now you put open source software into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put open source software into a teapot, it becomes the teapot, you put open source software into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. Now open source software can flow, or it can crash....Be open source my friend!" ...not so funny..but you get the point!

You can mold Chrome OS into whatever you want! Change it so that instead of connecting to Google's servers on start-up, it connects to your PC at home! Program it so that instead of saving your data on google's servers, it saves them on your PC at home! No one will stop you.

Stop complaining and start coding people.

Ah, but that requires knowledge of whatever language Chrome OS is coded in and the knowledge to write an OS with that knowledge. Open source isn't just for a bunch of hackers with substantial knowledge on the ins and outs of an operating system. It is so many people can work to improve the project.

[Ric_NYC]

If I'm on the NYC subway I won't be able to use my netbook running Chrome OS because there's no wifi there?

:confused:

[Psumi]

I have to agree with the OP as well, I do not like web-based OSes either.

[yester64]

Okay so I'm sure we could all get into a huge debate about how good/bad the idea is but I just want to say a few simple things about why I think its the worst idea I have heard from Google so far...

1. A web based OS? Hmm... why don't we go back to the 90's when everyone was using dumb terminals and logging into mainframes? Oh wait, that's exactly what Google OS is doing.

Its kinda like that. Is that bad? Not necessarily. My dream would be, that i can use the web to play the game of the day without installing it. Just as a Java app. I think it will come to that in the future.

2. All these years spent improving the speed of desktops/laptops and other hardware... Now we are going back to the stone age where pretty much no computing power is needed because everything is running off of External servers? That's a good idea.
Speed got improved for games in my opinion. Before a lot of people needed more power to run the latest ID game on their hardware. For a text program you don't need the latest dualcore really. Not sure if everyone need the superduper computer. Most people just use the internet anyways for email/web/facebook. Perhaps a little bloging.
Only if you do hardcore stuff like video editing, gaming and other hardware intense things you need the power. I for one would only get a notebook in the future and no desktop anymore.

3. Storing all personal/confidential information on the public internet? Really good idea, I'm sure there is nobody out there that will find a way to get access to it, regardless of how encrypted it is.
I am not sure about that. The fact is, that your data is currently not save on your computer or on the internet, but maybe more on the internet.
In a world of windows, you are really exposed to the evil out there. With linux i feel more saver. My concern is more, what a company will do with my datas and how i can be sure that it is not saved for eternity.

4. What happens when there's no internet connection? Even if all you want to do is work on a document or a power point, you wont be able to be because everything is saved to the internet. Unless of course Google plans to offer free wireless internet to the planet.
We all die then. Did you not see Southpark? Where is the INTERNET!!!!
We really depend on the internet in our daily lifes.
See it like that, if the internet would be off, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

[Glucklich]

This was the first time I saw Chrome OS working. I agree with most OP's points focused on usability. For me, the thing that shocked me the most was that doesn't feel like having space to breath. It's always something... it's always a google tab, it's always gmail tab, it's always some programs' tab, it's always a window within' a window... no wallpaper, where you can just relax and see whatever picture you have on the background and listen to some music. My desktop doesn't even have any icons so, it's really a breathing thing. What can I say... It's what they promised, a web-based OS. Though, I must admit that I thought it wouldn't be that limited. On the plus side, looks simple enough so anyone can use it.

[zagz]

Interesting to see Balmer's venomous thoughts on it.