Can it run Modern Warfare 2?
It's a big week for Microsoft. Which means Google has made a point of spotlighting a product designed to undercut its Redmond arch rival. Today, via webcast from its Mountain View headquarters, Google VP of product management Sundar Pichai and Engineering Director Matthew Papakipos unveiled an early version of Chrome OS, the …
Can it run Modern Warfare 2? -NO
Been following this announcement
It’s an operating system for netbooks to allow the netbook to function as a dumb terminal with Google as a server (mainframe)!
Google are looking ahead to future Netbook , Slate (Tablet), and Smartphone integration into new user gadgets for web browsing and working within the cloud – Google are offering themselves as the Cloud with their OS, through OEM on netbooks, as the route in.
Murdoch get weaving
So, at the same time as claiming openness, they're designing a locked down OS that you can't do anything useful on.
Isn't this what apple tried and had to backtrack on? This 'Google OS' sounds exactly like iphone OS 1.0 without the phone bit.
As Apple found... Web apps won't cut it. You don't always have a good network connection.
I wonder how many other people note the irony in the fact that MS got slammed for years, to the point of getting taken to various courts and fined untold billions, for tightly integrating a browser into an OS (an OS that can actually do more than just run the browser, too!) yet when Google do the same thing but to a far far greater and infinitely more restrictive extent, it's apparently some revolutionary new way of approaching operating systems...
So when I am out of range of any net connection I will basically own a very expensive, very exclusive place-mat? Brilliant!
I think Google is envisioning a future where you literally have connectivity anywhere. I don't think that is such an unusual thing to see happening. For most of us who live in cities there is some kind of municipal wifi available as well as unsecured networks and we all know the benefits of cloud computing.
I see this turning into a kind of liveCD by Google, essentially giving me a limited functionality OS on any machine I need to use it on and accessing all of my personal data on a personalised OS that I am familiar with. Nice idea for sure, swap my fully functioning netbook for a crippled version? Not a chance! But the end user will probably like it.
When the iPhone was released, it didn't support HTML 5 and the lack of offline storage crippled the web API. Support didn't come until OS 2.1, a point release after the native SDK.
If the iPhone was released today (or had supported HTML 5 from the start), there might not have been the same clamour for a native SDK.
No local apps? No thanks!
I'm well into the Google "scene", running Google Apps for Domains, but I just don't see this being anything past an "InstantOn" type solution for my Vaio P.
@Tony Hoyle - well, it's open as in open source - hopefully someone will create a version that's a little more worthwhile!
The point is, best beloved, that they are producing an OS for the great unwashed, not the esteemed over-clocked, penguin loving elreg readers found here.
Something that suits *most* of the people *most* of the time. The same people who actually do give a fuck what Paris did today.
Most of the great unwashed don't have access to 24x7x365 wireless internet connectivity.
What's the point in carrying with you a computer which is only usable when within range of an internet connection to which you are a subscriber/member?
I think that they should stop whatever they're smoking at Google's campus - the inmates have CLEARLY taken over the asylumn now.
One would guess that the netbooks coming up will most likely be dual boot ones with Google's Chrome OS for fast booting and safe websurfing (with no local storage beyond caching, presumably in RAM not much chance of being infected) and win 7 for the times you need more than a browser.
Now I *NEED* both WTF *and* FAIL icons!!!
Google have well and truly shown their spots and their depth of character with the announcement of ChromeOS.
Not only is it now clear that ChromeOS is nothing more than a way for them to get users eyes in front of their ad's so that they can earn more money, but they've also shown how little stomach they truly have to take on Microsoft and provide a credible alternative to Windows.
For all their bluster and shameless grandstanding, they've revealed themselves to be nothing more than the self-promoting bunch of failmeisters that many of us suspected them of being.
What I want to know is why, when it is eventually released, it's going to have taken them 2 years to create their own Linux distro'?
Isn't this essentially what Oracle were trying to do 10 or so years ago?
I personally like having local data and local processing power, but I would - being a software engineer.
I can actually see this possibly taking off with the MySpace generation though. As long as they can access the websites they like on the device - it'll do.
Reckon it'd have to run on cheaper hardware than a "full fat" PC/Netbook though, otherwise you'd (read: I'd) buy the general purpose one that could also access the internet.
For everyone and anyone who comments that you'll require an internet connection to do anything / you can't store anything locally on the machine etc etc etc
Google Gears. Heard of it? If not just, um, Google it
They didn't spend a whole load of time making gmail / google docs etc etc work offline using gears for nothing
I cannot say that I would want my confidential data stored on their Google servers, where someone could hack into them and get it. I do not have internet connections many times but yet still can work on my work documents and reports off line. I do not see the point of having to have one OS to work online quickly and another to work off line in the absence of a network.
Can you REALLY depend on the Google servers being up 100% of the time? And what about companies that are on private networks and which prohibit visitors from being on-line without an act of Parliament?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/fail_32.png on many accounts. Right now, in business, netbook or not, I do not see the true usefulness.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Beeb are reporting (amongst the predicted Googasm) that it does support offline storage in the form of SSDs and that "documents and files created on the computer were automatically synced and saved on Google's servers", so which is it? Offline storage or not?
I think it only has drivers for SSDs, so it can only boot from flash. That's pretty normal since it's initially aimed at netbooks.
As I understand it, it doesn't allow explicit offline storage. You can still use some webapps offline Gears-style, but all the magic happens in the cloud.
Anyway, think big, people! Google are aiming this at businesses rather than at home users -- they're betting they can sell bulk at cloud-happy companies who look to cut costs, while cutting Microsoft out of the equation. That's a sensible plan, anyway.
Read your own quotes.
You'll create documents and they'll be cached locally, then synced with the Google Servers. When a new Gmail message comes in it'll be on Google's servers and then get cached locally.
You'll undoubtedly be able to choose what gets cached and what doesn't.
@ Will Godfrey
What are you talking about? I can't see anything that even needs software outside the browser... if you need to pay to get Windows to get the right version of Flash for youtube then you can always download the video and watch it on VLC.
@All, especially doubters
This sounds like it'd be a good idea. You can keep your kids or other users locked down and pretty malware safe- with a cut-down OS there's far less scope for security problems. And for someone like, say, my mum it'd be perfect. Google Docs to let her type stuff, the spreadsheet thing for her spreadsheets, gmail integration, internet for research- it'll do anything she needs. Add one 3G dongle or a bluetooth link to her phone and she'll never have a problem.
If this can run on seriously cut-down hardware- say a phone-esque ARM chipset and a big touchscreen- then it could be a very convenient thing to have around the house. The ARM chipset would mean huge battery life compared to a "regular" laptop, the (presumably) lower cost would mean it'd be more available than an iTablet (whenever it comes out). Plus it's from Google so it's got enough positive brand-image and brand-awareness that, combined with the lower price, it could help chip away at Apple's market. It could even have a better shot at the corporate market if they're already using google's commercial offerings.
And with the likes of StreamMyGame, if they eventually make a Google Chrome OS compatible client, yes will technically allow you to play Modern Warfare. But you'll need a "proper" machine to actually run the game. If Google Chrome OS takes off you'll probably find internet-based computers where you can run the latest games on their servers and just watch/control from yours. Pay a low monthly fee or put up with 320x200, a 30-minute session time, a delay before game start, and loads of ads for free.
So I predict that this, if managed properly, could become the next very big thing. MS won't fade away, but Apple's growth will slow and possibly recede. Linux will grow slightly as people mod their Google Chrome OS devices.
Or they could make a complete hash of it and it'll fall by the roadside to be "lol"ed at.
I like Google's web services but this will never catch on beyond the occasional nerd who just buys it because it's there.
If my broadband connection goes down I can, at least, still use my computer for other stuff (games, programming, writing, accounts, etc). With this sort of online-only browser-based 'OS' you're stuffed the moment the net connection goes away. It'd be about as much use as a doorstop.
To all intents and purposes, Google are reinventing the dumb terminal that runs Windows 1 (yes, 'one') with a slightly updated interface.
I ain't going anywhere near it.
"when Google do the same thing but to a far far greater and infinitely more restrictive extent, it's apparently some revolutionary new way of approaching operating systems..."
No my friend, it is not revolutionary it is a piece of useless shit no matter how you look at it.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding around this. I'd watch some of the youtube videos. There will be 'apps' like a music player...but the apps will work with data on the internet, so 90% of the music played will be streamed (aka spotify and last.fm). You can get pictures off your camera so that you can upload them to the cloud, not run photoshop and organize locally.
As has already been proven "The Cloud" can and will fail, just like local hard drives and web applications will be compromised. So, in essence, you're swapping user-controlled compromised and unstable data for Google-controlled compromised unstable data. I'll stick with the failure-prone and buggy systems I control thanks.
We still don't have the capacity for this sort of always-connected computer use. Many people currently using netbooks access the web with pay-as-you-go 3G dongles or other accounts with bandwidth limits, and I doubt they're going to want to use a system that relies on storing all your data online and burns through your allowance in days. And that's without mentioning the speed/coverage of O2 3G, the limited availability or speed of much public Wifi, etc.
Also, as mentioned, there is a need for local applications. It doesn't seem clear whether it'll let you play MP3s or video locally. Maybe it'll have a local application that lets you play a few audio formats in a tied-down built-in audio player, but that's no substitute for Linux or Windows which can install unlimited codecs and different media players. People will also want to connect digital cameras etc which will require drivers running on the computer. Businesses may want to install applications for data security, account management, etc on the netbook.
It's instructive that the iPhone was originally supposed to support browser applications only, but Apple gave up on that, and Android was meant to run everything in a virtual machine, but Google gave up on that and allowed native-code applications. So chances are they'll end up opening the platform to third-party developers (even if said developers don't hack it themselves).