Google OS

[Michael]

Google Plans a PC Operating System

SAN FRANCISCO — In a direct challenge to Microsoft, Google announced late Tuesday that it is developing an operating system for PCs that is tied to its Chrome Web browser.

The software, called the Google Chrome Operating System, is initially intended for use in the tiny, low-cost portable computers known as netbooks, which have been selling quickly even as demand for other PCs has plummeted. Google said it believed the software would also be able to power full-size PCs.

The move is likely to sharpen the already intense competition between Google and Microsoft, whose Windows operating system controls the basic functions of the vast majority of personal computers.

“Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS,” said Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Linus Upson, engineering director, in a post on a company blog. “We’re designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the Web in a few seconds.”

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?_r=1&hp)

Well, this should be interesting. Anything that can help bust the Microsoft OS monopoly is a good thing in my book.

[andrewl]

It will be very interesting to see how the PC manufacturers respond. In order to really compete with Microsoft, Chrome will have to be an option for consumers and corporate clients... will Hp, Lenovo, and Dell offer CHROME as the OS on their PC's or will it just be a free download after-market?

Andrew

[drgoodtrips]

Up until now, the biggest name in Linux distributions has been RedHat. There's really no incentive for OEM's to pay attention. Now that Google is distributing Linux, there is, for the first time, a major name behind it in terms of throwing commercial weight around. I think that's the real story here.

I don't look for the OS itself to be particularly remarkable (and I think that on a long enough time line, Google vs. Microsoft is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"), but I'm very curious to see what effect this will have on public perception of Linux and open source software. At least the open source OS kernel. I'd imagine that Google will plop all manner of proprietary shit on top of this.

I'm also interested to see if the OS is given away for free or if they'll charge a nominal fee. If it's free, that would be a good incentive for me to buy one of their netbooks, blow away Google's OS and install a Linux distribution I like better, for the low power usage on their chips.

(As an aside, does it strike anyone else as ironic that "Google announced late Tuesday that it is developing an operating system for PCs that is tied to its Chrome Web browser"? Isn't this exactly what Microsoft has been bitch-slapped about regarding anti-trust in terms of vertical monopoly?)

[andrewl]

(As an aside, does it strike anyone else as ironic that "Google announced late Tuesday that it is developing an operating system for PCs that is tied to its Chrome Web browser"? Isn't this exactly what Microsoft has been bitch-slapped about regarding anti-trust in terms of vertical monopoly?)

Will I.E. even work on it? Im assuming a version of firefox would be available just as it is for linux...

Andrew

[drgoodtrips]

Will I.E. even work on it? Im assuming a version of firefox would be available just as it is for linux...

Andrew

Firefox already exists on Linux (and whatever they decide to call it, Google's OS is just Linux with a paint job). I don't know the specifics of the interaction between that browser and the kernel, but I'm assuming that it's native, since Firefox is the de facto browser for Linux distributions. Some of them have their own browsers but, to my knowledge, Firefox will work on any of them except highly specialized, small distributions for which Firefox is too bloated.

I doubt IE will work natively, but I think it is theoretically possible to run it on Linux. There's a Linux utility called "Wine" that allows Microsoft applications to be run on Linux as-is. Although, I don't know of any strong motivation to run IE on Linux whatsoever. If you have Linux, there's a good chance it's because you don't want all of the security problems associated with IE and Microsoft's windowing system.

[andrewl]

Turns out it will be free, and they have partnered with many PC makers, including HP and Lenovo.

"Google will team up with a number of PC makers, wireless chip developers and software companies to develop and launch its new Chrome operating system.
Google will partner with Acer, Adobe, ASUS, Freescale, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments and Toshiba — among others — to develop devices that can work with Chrome, according to a glob post Wednesday evening.
The goal is "to design and build devices that deliver an extraordinary end user experience," the post on the Chrome site said.
The opened-sourced operating system will be available free of charge."


http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/07/09/google-chrome-partners532.html



Andrew

[drgoodtrips]

Kickass! That's what I like to hear. You can probably count me in as an early adopter, though I don't know how long I'll keep the OS just to putter with it.

But, whether I do or not, I like what that seems to me to mean for the industry. First off, it'll force Microsoft (and perhaps Apple, though that's a planet to itself) to lower prices on its low end offerings, which I think is overdue. Secondly, it could catapult Linux more into the mainstream, though it would need to be somewhat successful to do that. And, third, it'll offer a mainstream OS that is (for the time being) less proprietary and more open than both Apple (the worst) and Microsoft (next in line).

I think the single biggest obstacle for Google will be to provide out of the box hardware support at least within the same ball park as Microsoft. Nothing sends casual users to the return line faster than putting in a DVD and having nothing happen or plugging in some USB device and getting a weird error message. And, incidentally, that is the hardest thing for Linux to overcome from a programming standpoint. Hardware vendors have been working directly with Microsoft for years whereas the same hardware support only comes when a small company or someone like me decides they want X device to work on Linux and they write a driver for it. Linux is perpetually playing catch-up with hardware.

It would be great if Google could do something about that. :bigclap: Because, while I can and have done it, writing drivers isn't exactly how I prefer to spend my Saturday afternoons.

[andrewl]

Im certainly going to give it a shot. But if can't play a game or run itunes or download torrents it will be pretty worthless to me.

Andrew

[drgoodtrips]

If anyone's interested, wired has a pretty good take on what obstacles it faces:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/chrome-linux/

[andrewl]

If anyone's interested, wired has a pretty good take on what obstacles it faces:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/chrome-linux/


Good article. I think they hit it on the head with itunes especially. An emulator won't cut it for the general user. Iphones are becoming so ubiquitous that Google would really need to make sure it has that compatibility.

Correct me if im wrong but apple apps are UNIX and its not much of a step from that to linux is it?

Andrew

[drgoodtrips]

Good article. I think they hit it on the head with itunes especially. An emulator won't cut it for the general user. Iphones are becoming so ubiquitous that Google would really need to make sure it has that compatibility.

Correct me if im wrong but apple apps are UNIX and its not much of a step from that to linux is it?

Andrew

Apple's OS is based on FreeBSD, which is "UNIX-like". There is a lot of overlap in design principles between UNIX and Linux, but they are not "plug and play" compatible, so to speak. Google would have some legwork to do in order to make their OS sing and dance with Apple products (how much depends on how obstructionist Apple wants to be).

[Americano]

From what I've read Google's new OS is to be directed at low-end laptops used primarily for Internet browsing with chrome.

[drgoodtrips]

From what I've read Google's new OS is to be directed at low-end laptops used primarily for Internet browsing with chrome.

I'd imagine that's the "hook". It's a good place to start, and a sound design principle: start with a relatively small and uncomplicated software product and grow its feature base along with the user base. Google's flagship product is actually a masterful piece of simplicity in software.

Whether that can translate to an OS or not will be interesting to see. An OS is necessarily and inherently complex under the hood.

[Lily]

I was in Best Buy the other day and saw a whole lot of these small, low-priced laptops, many under $400, which are designed specifically for web browsing and email, little more than that. Nearly every machine was running Windows XP with SP2. If that's Google's initial market, I think it may work.

[Americano]

Wouldn't web browsing and email be the bulk of end users?

[Michael]

Wouldn't web browsing and email be the bulk of end users?
Probably 80-90% of home computer users I'd guess.

A majority of home computer users seem to consider word processing software to be a major challenge.

[Americano]

The concept, to me, sounds brilliant. A low-cost laptop requires no accompanying furniture, G-Mail is as easy as it gets and Chrome loads far faster than anything I've experienced. Should be a winner. I'd think they'll get the total purchase price somewhere around $2-300?

[Michael]

The concept, to me, sounds brilliant. A low-cost laptop requires no accompanying furniture, G-Mail is as easy as it gets and Chrome loads far faster than anything I've experienced. Should be a winner. I'd think they'll get the total purchase price somewhere around $2-300?
They'll need to get the price point down there given that the whole growth market for these products is non-1st world countries and they already have products competing below that price point (India has $100 laptops).

The Microsoft monopoly is looking increasingly weak as one looks at the future.

One can hardly build a monopoly in the third world with extremely inflated prices - Microsoft isn't even a competitor in this market.

[Americano]

They'll need to get the price point down there given that the whole growth market for these products is non-1st world countries and they already have products competing below that price point (India has $100 laptops).

The Microsoft monopoly is looking increasingly weak as one looks at the future.

One can hardly build a monopoly in the third world with extremely inflated prices - Microsoft isn't even a competitor in this market.

Excellent points.

[drgoodtrips]

The concept, to me, sounds brilliant. A low-cost laptop requires no accompanying furniture, G-Mail is as easy as it gets and Chrome loads far faster than anything I've experienced. Should be a winner. I'd think they'll get the total purchase price somewhere around $2-300?

These are called "Netbooks" and they've been around for a bit (at least in concept):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbook

Besides being small, portable, and low on bells and whistles in terms of software, they also seem generally focussed on minimizing the hardware. Today's processor/disk/memory standards in your average PC are drastic overkill for what most computer users want (though necessary for running Windows, which I think smells like collaborative gouging between Microsoft and computer OEMs). I have 10 year old computers that can work perfectly well for internet browsing, email checking, social networking sites, etc. In addition to cutting down on those expensive components, the compact netbooks also (generally, I think) do not feature disk drives, floppy drives, or sometimes even USB device support. They come off the shelves as "dumb terminals".

Microsoft recently shot themselves in the nuts with early adopters in this market. They touted a netbook version of Windows 7 and casually mentioned that users would only be allowed to run something like 3 applications simultaneously. This was ostensibly to prevent users from overtaxing the netbook hardware, though I rather think the idea was to offer a nearly free version of the OS with just enough features to convince you that you needed to shell out more money to run more software, ala the regular and "premium" versions of downloadable software.

I believe they have since backed away from this approach.

[Americano]

These are called "Netbooks" and they've been around for a bit (at least in concept):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbook

Besides being small, portable, and low on bells and whistles in terms of software, they also seem generally focussed on minimizing the hardware. Today's processor/disk/memory standards in your average PC are drastic overkill for what most computer users want (though necessary for running Windows, which I think smells like collaborative gouging between Microsoft and computer OEMs). I have 10 year old computers that can work perfectly well for internet browsing, email checking, social networking sites, etc. In addition to cutting down on those expensive components, the compact netbooks also (generally, I think) do not feature disk drives, floppy drives, or sometimes even USB device support. They come off the shelves as "dumb terminals".

Microsoft recently shot themselves in the nuts with early adopters in this market. They touted a netbook version of Windows 7 and casually mentioned that users would only be allowed to run something like 3 applications simultaneously. This was ostensibly to prevent users from overtaxing the netbook hardware, though I rather think the idea was to offer a nearly free version of the OS with just enough features to convince you that you needed to shell out more money to run more software, ala the regular and "premium" versions of downloadable software.

I believe they have since backed away from this approach.

It sounds to me like MS has made a bad call. In their effort to avoid dilution of Win7 revenue, they're seemingly ignoring what has to be the largest potential global market, cheap netbooks.

I've read a couple of articles stating the corporate world is resisting blanket adoption of win7 on the grounds of if it ain't broke don't fix (replace) it and staying with XP.

[drgoodtrips]

It sounds to me like MS has made a bad call. In their effort to avoid dilution of Win7 revenue, they're seemingly ignoring what has to be the largest potential global market, cheap netbooks.

I've read a couple of articles stating the corporate world is resisting blanket adoption of win7 on the grounds of if it ain't broke don't fix (replace) it and staying with XP.

From having my fingers on the pulse of tech sites and IT contacts, I'd say you're right. I don't think very many companies at all have adoption policies regarding Windows 7. I think their problem was they let XP be the standard for so long that it gave corporate America all sorts of time to develop applications that became very specific and coupled to XP. The longer you let people get used to the same OS, the more headaches they'll have upgrading.

[Michael]

From having my fingers on the pulse of tech sites and IT contacts, I'd say you're right. I don't think very many companies at all have adoption policies regarding Windows 7. I think their problem was they let XP be the standard for so long that it gave corporate America all sorts of time to develop applications that became very specific and coupled to XP. The longer you let people get used to the same OS, the more headaches they'll have upgrading.

And the more time they have to discover that the 'need' to upgrade is primarily driven by the IT industry's need to for revenue, rather than any benefit to the user.

I (and many of my friends) were running Win98v2 right up until last year, then switched to XP. I expect to stay with XP for the next decade.

[Americano]

As an individual my software requirements are very basic and I have no desire to upgrade from XP. I'm still using Office 2000 and about all I ever upgrade is imaging software. I did skip the last upgrade of Corel's Paint Shop Pro as when doing a features comparison I couldn't determine any new benefits. Fortunately the camera manufacturers upgrade their proprietary imaging software for free.

If Microsoft doesn't get the desktop/laptop OEM resellers in their clutches imo they could have another Vista on their hands.

[Americano]

From having my fingers on the pulse of tech sites and IT contacts, I'd say you're right. I don't think very many companies at all have adoption policies regarding Windows 7. I think their problem was they let XP be the standard for so long that it gave corporate America all sorts of time to develop applications that became very specific and coupled to XP. The longer you let people get used to the same OS, the more headaches they'll have upgrading.

Considering depressed earnings, from a management viewpoint the IT labor required for an OS upgrade and the resulting headaches has to be a serious consideration.

[dannydesiliva]

I heard tell that Google were to release their own operation system based on a linux platform and have found various places on the internet claiming this, including a blog but there seems to be no further news since July 8th 2009. Does anyone have later news on this development, I an a linux fan and would love to know if and when this is going to be available?

[drgoodtrips]

Not a lot of news of late on the tech sites that I monitor.

[Donkey]

I'd like to know if it will work better than the ubuntu netbook remix I have on my acer netbook. There have been mic/audio issues and flash problems which I haven't really quite fixed.

[drgoodtrips]

I'd like to know if it will work better than the ubuntu netbook remix I have on my acer netbook. There have been mic/audio issues and flash problems which I haven't really quite fixed.

I wouldn't bet on that for a good while. I believe the initial offering is mainly aimed at mobile devices, and that they intend to spread into the computer market from there.

The google OS is going to be based on the Linux kernel, AFAIK, but then they are going to write their own desktop manager and UI. What this means for you is that the part of the OS that manages hardware, schedules processes, and other things you don't care about will be like Linux, but the part that you interact with is going to be brand-spanking new. Any, any new software is going to have kinks to work through.

(I'm not sure how they'll handle drivers, though, and that appears to be what your current issue is)

[Americano]

Not to hijack the thread, but could someone recommend a Linux distribution best suited for an average (non-gamer) desktop user? I see 55 different offerings on the Linux homepage.

[drgoodtrips]

Ubuntu is considered the Linux for beginners, I think. In a lot of respects, it's reminiscent of Windows - it handles sysadmin stuff (mostly) for you, a lot of devices "just work", it acts/feels kind of like windows.

That's a good start. Also, Ubuntu is one of the distributions that will let you take it for a test drive. If you put the ISO image on a CD and then boot with the CD, it will allow you to run the OS without replacing what is there. You can get a good feel for how you like it.

I've also had good experience with Fedora (a little more "Linux-y"), Debian and Slackware (not for the faint of heart!).

[Americano]

Ubuntu is considered the Linux for beginners, I think. In a lot of respects, it's reminiscent of Windows - it handles sysadmin stuff (mostly) for you, a lot of devices "just work", it acts/feels kind of like windows.

That's a good start. Also, Ubuntu is one of the distributions that will let you take it for a test drive. If you put the ISO image on a CD and then boot with the CD, it will allow you to run the OS without replacing what is there. You can get a good feel for how you like it.

I've also had good experience with Fedora (a little more "Linux-y"), Debian and Slackware (not for the faint of heart!).

Appreciate it. I've done some research and Ubuntu is by far the most popular with, from what I've read, quite a bit of Debian it. I just did a HD wipe on my primary PC and set-up a partition to learn Linux and hopefully wean myself (and eventually our household) off the Windows teat.

[drgoodtrips]

Yeah, the Linux world is an interesting place. Ubuntu is an offshoot of Debian. The Ubuntu project was started by taking Debian as-is from some time back and making it more "Windows-like". I believe they said something like "we want to take a Linux distribution and change all of the things that keep windows users from wanting to use it."

There are also lots of other Debian offshoots around as well. Debian is one of the longest running Linux projects.

[Americano]

Yeah, the Linux world is an interesting place. Ubuntu is an offshoot of Debian. The Ubuntu project was started by taking Debian as-is from some time back and making it more "Windows-like". I believe they said something like "we want to take a Linux distribution and change all of the things that keep windows users from wanting to use it."

There are also lots of other Debian offshoots around as well. Debian is one of the longest running Linux projects.

I took the easy way out, eBay, $5.19 verified copy of 9.10 by first class mail.
Off the top of your head, a recommended Ubuntu tech forum for amateurs?

[drgoodtrips]

I post here once in a blue moon. Most of the people are friendly, especially champions of the Linux cause:

http://forums.devshed.com/

I'm not a member, but I think ubuntu's project site gets decent traffic, too:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=326

[Americano]

I post here once in a blue moon. Most of the people are friendly, especially champions of the Linux cause:

http://forums.devshed.com/

I'm not a member, but I think ubuntu's project site gets decent traffic, too:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=326

Again, thanks. I'll report on the experience.

[Greendruid]

Again, thanks. I'll report on the experience.

I'll be interested to hear too. I'm forced to use Windows on my office computer at the university but I really hate the things that Windows does to speed on a PC after a while. Has to be the registry clog problem that so many people report. I've thought about switching to Linux at home but am terrified of losing something important in the process.

[drgoodtrips]

Windows is the only current OS that degrades in performance over the course of time, and this is, in a sense, because of the registry. More accurately, it's because of how the registry is used by software. The registry can be manipulated by people with the know-how to have their software do all sorts of "behind the scenes" things that degrade performance. And, what's worse is that because of Microsoft's proprietary structure, there isn't really a reliable way to go through and clean it up. Mac is proprietary, but doesn't have this same paradigm. The *NIX operating systems are completely transparent - nothing is going to install itself and run at boot-time without you being well aware of it.

With Microsoft OS, to get good performance, one should periodically re-install the OS. Personally, I go one better with Windows machines and periodically format the hard drive and re-install. If you go to Linux, you can just hum along forever. I have a server at home that runs Fedora to manage my files and control my lights, among other things, and it has been booted up and running without issue for months, even as I update the software or start and stop programs on it.

[Americano]

Windows is the only current OS that degrades in performance over the course of time, and this is, in a sense, because of the registry. More accurately, it's because of how the registry is used by software. The registry can be manipulated by people with the know-how to have their software do all sorts of "behind the scenes" things that degrade performance. And, what's worse is that because of Microsoft's proprietary structure, there isn't really a reliable way to go through and clean it up. Mac is proprietary, but doesn't have this same paradigm. The *NIX operating systems are completely transparent - nothing is going to install itself and run at boot-time without you being well aware of it.

With Microsoft OS, to get good performance, one should periodically re-install the OS. Personally, I go one better with Windows machines and periodically format the hard drive and re-install. If you go to Linux, you can just hum along forever. I have a server at home that runs Fedora to manage my files and control my lights, among other things, and it has been booted up and running without issue for months, even as I update the software or start and stop programs on it.

(my bold)

That's the very same advice I was given by my IT guy many years ago with Win3.0. With Win95 it was almost an absolute necessity to retain sanity. Since then I generally reformat and reload about every six-months. Can't beat it.

[Americano]

I'll be interested to hear too. I'm forced to use Windows on my office computer at the university but I really hate the things that Windows does to speed on a PC after a while. Has to be the registry clog problem that so many people report. I've thought about switching to Linux at home but am terrified of losing something important in the process.

Get an external hard drive to backup everything that's important. They're dirt cheap.