Google have shown a preview of the OS they are developing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8369611.stm
I like some points, such as speed, but I wouldn't use it purely for the fact that it means all the data is stored on Google's servers.
All my data on their servers? No chance.
I can certainly see the benefit to those who don't care about that or backups though. As pointed out in the BBC article, if you have a hardware failure your data is all safely stored.
True. Well, it's stored at least. ;D
;D
:eek4:
This is the bit that really sucks for me! :shake:
Quote
Google has been able to boost the speed of the system by designing it for specific hardware. The firm said that it would only run on computers using "solid state drives" instead of traditional hard drives.
In addition, the firm has been talking to hardware manufacturers to specify which components to include on finished machines.
This means that the company could "optimise" the code to run as quickly as possible, said Mr Pichai.
Sounds like a Mac :evil:
:hide: :hide2:
Those who think this sort of thing is a goer, may like to have a look at Gaël Duval's Ulteo (http://www.ulteo.com/home/en/home?autolang=en).
You won't have to buy a new computer. ::)
Or, if you are really feeling adventurous then try this (http://gdgt.com/google/chrome-os/download/).
I do think it's the future, but Google will be even more powerful, and that's worrying.
Yep, I do too Seb, it makes sense to make terminals rather than PC's. Huge data centres with mainframe computers providing the computing power, the initial outlay to a user is lower, but the profit to the operator is higher as they charge for the amount of cpu resources that you use.
Well at least whilst BT performs as it does we're probably safe in the UK for sometime ahead. :whistle:
Here's a little more information on how Google views Chrome OS (http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/news/2009/11/20/Google-Unveils-Chrome-OS/p1).
Will the EU now lambast Google for not incorporating other browsers in its OS justa s they did with MS but NOT Apple. :evil:
Probably. No one likes a winner. ;)
There're probably not going to worry about non mainstream products
Quote from: cavillas on Nov 20, 2009, 19:03:59
Will the EU now lambast Google for not incorporating other browsers in its OS justa s they did with MS but NOT Apple. :evil:
The difference being that Windows is in use on 90% of the world's computers.
It's Ok in a city full of wireless access points, but round here it would be no more useful that a brick once outside the house.
Ok for Swindon then, we could call it the capital city of Chrome. :evil:
Quote from: kinmel on Nov 21, 2009, 12:08:07
It's Ok in a city full of wireless access points, but round here it would be no more useful that a brick once outside the house.
Bricks are quite useful on the outside of houses, most seem to have been built with them ;)
:lol:
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 21, 2009, 01:37:37
The difference being that Windows is in use on 90% of the world's computers.
But that's not Microsofts' fault, blame the customers. ;D
It is their fault - they set out to dominate the market. :)
But no company can dominate a market without a product that their customers want :)
That's true to some extent. :)
Here's another interesting link Does Chrome OS spell the End of Desktops? (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2356132,00.asp)
The comments after the article are also well worth reading.
Quote from: john on Nov 21, 2009, 19:03:48
But no company can dominate a market without a product that their customers want :)
A company can create a Market driven by telling the customer they need its services, and by basically shouting the loudest they achieve market dominance off the back of peoples ignorance, and they use unfair means to achieve it, see Intel for details.
But customers are free to use alternative services and whilst there will always be some that are ignorant I don't believe this is the case with Microsoft as the people who specify the majority of Windows based PC's are IT professionals working in industry who are well aware of the alternatives coupled with the fact that Microsoft were able to offer a viable system for commercial use. Home users may also choose Windows based systems not out of ignorance but because it is the same system as they use at work.
Anyone remember Visicalc? People didn't buy computers, they bought machines which would run Visicalc...
Nope. :dunno:
Nope
Whispers to Simon, "He's older than us"
:evil:
:nana: ;D
Quote from: Rik on Nov 22, 2009, 11:29:22
Anyone remember Visicalc? People didn't buy computers, they bought machines which would run Visicalc...
I remember that too as I have used it on an Atari ST (there was also an Amiga version), before moving on to Lotus 1-2-3(DOS) and I still use the version 9.7 for Windows to this day), as I do not like Excel at all. I suppose so many years using one program you get so used to it and I still use the original DOS keyboard shortcuts (which they threatened to remove but never did) which are ten times quicker than using the mouse. When I had my computer shop, all my system builds (five separate ranges with many upgrade options), used one huge very complex spreadsheet, which calculated all my selling prices, profit margins etc and printed out my retail spec sheets for customers. I used to spent many hours after closing time every other day, updating prices from new trade prices received during the day as you had to keep on top if it as profit margins were very slim. Some of the calculations were over 3 lines in length in length (with so many embedded IF/THEN and many other commands) and I think if I looked at them now it would put my head in a spin. So I must be showing my age as well.
Colin
I'm glad I'm not alone, Colin. I went from Visicalc to 1-2-3 to Quattro Pro. I still use that, unless forced to use Excel.
of interest
http://riosec.com/google-chromium-os-first-look