Google's Chrome OS Flex could revive old PCs, Macs Google has announced early access to a new version of Chrome OS called Flex, which runs on ordinary x86 hardware, offering the chance to revive older PCs or even out-of-support Macs. The year of Linux on the desktop actually arrived a few years back, but the world didn't notice. Chromebook sales did great early last year, …
My previous investigations with chromebooks ended with me removing Chrome and replacing it with a generic Mint installation. The hardware was nice enough (Toshiba x86 in my case) but the reliance on a web connection, and the complete absence of any of the developer (software and hardware) applications at the time meant that while it was fine as a browser, that was effectively it for me.
Possibly my use cases are not run-of-the-mill.
It’s an odd thing. But when I buy a Mac I buy it because I want it to be a Mac. And even with my old Macs (and some are very old - I still have my SE/30 that I took to university when it was still the newish hotness), I still want them to be a Mac.
Damned if I can work out why I’d put a less capable OS on them. Especially one which is, arguably, one big spyware.
Hopefully you've taken the PRAM battery out by now. There are CR2032 battery adapters from MeowToast on etsy that aren't bad and are very cute.
You can get your SE/30 online, btw, which can be quite useful if you want to download something from the Macintosh Garden via iCab but it is slooow. I use a Mac Mini G4 running SSW9.2.2. for these jobs and then I transfer software to the compact macs via LAN. An wthernet card in your SE/30 obviously makes the process a lot easier.
Backing up 45RPM here, OSx or Windows make more sense on old hardware, and I'm not seeing a rush for the door to install 11 on new hardware. Android app support was the one narrow case that might have had a sliver of utility here. And if you are leaving the comfortable world of an older version of the os that shipped with a machine, why go to one that was intentionally crippled, is loaded with spyware, and will have the most BIOS, driver, and compatibility issues.
Just install the Unix of your choice at that point. All of them have web browsers too, most have a chrome build.
The thing that irritates me is that half the tech websites all ran an article like this, basically at the same time. When the Reg is shilling for one of the worst products Google hasn't cancelled yet, I can take it as irony(or a bottle of something top shelf in the press kit), but most of them are trying to play this straight, and they seem to be written off the same crib sheet, using the same taking points, and glossing over the same issues.
The thing that irritates me is that half the tech websites all ran an article like this, basically at the same time.
Of course, it's a new release, so it gets reported at around the same time by all the news sites. And yes, the articles will point out what it is aimed at and what's it good for, they wouldn't be worth reading if all they did was comment on how badly it works for things it's not designed to do.
The article told me all I needed to know. Lightweight, minimal configuration, management tools (which Unix tends to suck at)... I'm interested. Oh, but you have to use Google accounts? Sorry, without LDAP integration it's a toy and I'm moving on.
The articles done its job for me, it presented an option and I was able to dismiss it in the space of five minutes.
The article isn't bad, but it is curious how many sites are reporting on this release when you consider how much meaning it really has. Effectively, this is the release of an OS that already exists that you could run already through an open source variant by a company that already had exactly this with a different name. It doesn't sound as newsworthy when I put it that way.
I don't think this was sponsored content or gave the software too kind a review, but I do wonder how it was decided that this product was newsworthy when so many others wouldn't be covered. That many sites are making the same decision implies that many people think this is important, but I'm not seeing it.
[Article author here]
I submit that it's quite important.
This is by far the biggest and most widely-used Linux OS in the world; it is the 2nd best-selling OS in the world. ChromeBooks outsell Macs, as my links to our previous coverage stated.
Like macOS, up to now, it only officially ran on the maker's own hardware. Now that has changed and it is supported on multiple vendors' hardware. That is significant.
What was previously a fairly obscure 3rd party product is now an official Google product; that's significant. It might have been discontinued, but instead, it is now official. It used to cost money for business use, and no longer does. These are all big deals.
Because of this change, now there are good solid reasons for Windows-centric businesses to consider ChromeOS, which can be legally deployed across an estate of computers, for zero licence cost. That's significant.
For home users, it can also make older machines that are basically junk using the makers' official OSes (be that Windows or Apple) useful again using a mainstream, non-niche OS designed for non-techies.
Yes, many people distrust Google, for reasons that are valid for them. However, many do not, and many do not care.
Not all of your points are correct.
"This is by far the biggest and most widely-used Linux OS in the world;": No, that's Android. If we're letting something be declared Linux by having a Linux kernel under it. If we're requiring the ecosystem that the Linux label usually entails, neither count (virtualization that's only sort of supported and requires a technical user to take many steps doesn't count).
"Like macOS, up to now, it only officially ran on the maker's own hardware. Now that has changed and it is supported on multiple vendors' hardware. That is significant.": No, it ran on lots of vendors' hardware. Take any company that makes Windows laptops, and the chances are quite high they also make Chromebooks. When the OS started, Google didn't make any. They do now, but it's not only those that support it. In addition, it was possible to run it on general hardware before. A little trickier, since you would either run Chromium OS or a patched version, but I've done it when it was new to see how weird it was. It was far easier than hackintoshes.
As for home users, they're not going to use this if they wouldn't use Linux. Either way, they're going to have to remove one OS and install another, which most won't do by themselves. If they have a technical friend do it for them, then it doesn't matter how niche the replacement is as long as it works.
Again, I have no complaints about your coverage. I just don't think it's as significant as you say.
"As for home users, they're not going to use this if they wouldn't use Linux. "
It remains to be seen if there is a subset of home users who are unaware of Linux or think it's for hackers and geeks but certainly not them, who will be able to follow simple instructions to resurrect their closet PCs.
Some may subsequently discover that installing Zorin or Mint is just as easy. At any rate, this is a step forward and needs to be publicised. It's well worth the ink (or electrons).
Enthusiastic home (and office) user here who, like many visiting this site, now has too many computers.
Macs, WIndows XP through 11 (because.... Microsoft) (seldom play with Linux and BSD any more) and the simple advantage is for the first time in 30 years being able to standardise on a single OS.
To the extent it runs in the browser it is a complete replacement for other OSes. And with transportable settings.
Fired it up on a cobbled-together PC (Windows 7) and it ran apart from occasional artefacts on the screen perfectly. Even recognising a USB wi-fi dongle which Windows has difficulty with.
So overall it gets my vote.
Because of this change, now there are good solid reasons for Windows-centric businesses to consider ChromeOS, which can be legally deployed across an estate of computers, for zero licence cost. That's significant.
As with business gmail, it'll only be free for some time, even if there are no plans to charge now.
If it turns out to be a success, they will in time charge, and it will be even harder to move away than it is from an email service.
Worse, if it is not a success, at some point they'll give you 6 months to move your shit before they nuke it, as is the Google way.
Then ChromeOS will not revive it. If it could, then a simple OS reinstall would suffice.
The ever more [cancerous] bloated World Wide Web is what makes a lot of computers into junk in the first place. The Chrome web browser is what makes computers run like ass, it’s not the fix for it. If you want to revive a vintage computer, then start using it to actually compute things instead of surfing the web.
I tried CloudReady and it was a great option but it was lacking compared to ChromeOS, mostly because of the lack of Google integrations like voice typing (which were important for the audience it was meant for).
But yeah, this one is just a new version of the old one. The big difference is that it's now included in Chrome's codebase instead of being a separate effort and that it has Chrome instead of Chromium.
My wife only ever used her Windows laptop with Chrome and things that could run in Chrome. So I got her a decent Chrome laptop. Updates regularly. Just runs Chrome.
Much less hassle than having to fix a Windows Vista / 10 / 11 laptop. FWIW I use Fedora on my personal systems and Debian on work systems.
C.
When covid came, the organisation I work for re imaged loads of redundant laptops and Surface Pros with CloudReady, donating to anyone local/in a hospital etc who needed a device for Zoom; the only nuisance was that we could only create four or so Google accounts with one mobile phone number. Imaging was very quick and painless, and the simplicity and ease of use for the intended audience was perfect.
People in hospital, haven't they suffered enough already?
For what it's worth, Zoom works just fine on ordinary Linux distributions with not a single Google account (or mobile phone number, WTF?) required. Your mileage might vary, but my experience is that most distros' imaging is quick and painless and that their simplicity and ease of use far surpass recent versions of Windows.
-A.
> A standard Linux distro will also run locally without needing an internet connection
Of course it will, yes.
But I put it to you that this is missing the main point of 21st century computing:
Computers are no longer primarily standalone devices for doing programming or productivity work. They are primarily *communications devices* now.
As such, if they cannot communicate, they are largely useless for most people.
If most of what you need is communications, then you do not need a rich local OS. Rich local OSes require maintenance.
All most users need is the ability to get onto the web. If they can do that, it does not just mean that they xan surf; it means they can email, chat, make phone calls, make video calls, join meetings and conferences, as well as most of the traditional productivity features of the 20th century. They can _also_ do word processing, spreadsheets, work on presentations and databases, develop and test programs, and so on.
All they need from their OS is:
• good fast web access with fast Javascript.
• a way to access cloud storage
• a way to save files locally and onto removable media, which means USB keys
• a way to view those files and do basic file management
• maybe, for when they are not online, a way to listen to music or watch videos.
That's it.
That is what ChromeOS delivers, and at core, nothing more.
This is not a product for people who want a full-featured local OS. It is a product for the basic lowest-common-denominator, totally non-technical user.
It turns a generic PC into a tablet with a keyboard, and that's all most people need.
I am not saying that I like this, or that I personally want this; or that it's for existing Linux users, or for power users of Windows or Mac. It isn't.
But if you want a computer as an appliance, and you have one that works but which is too slow for use today, suddenly this makes it viable again, without any Linux skills.
That is quite a big deal.
We actually did try Ubuntu on some of the laptops, but it was more troublesome and complicated for the intended requirement. On the Surface Pro for example, if the device went to sleep often you often couldn't wake it up and had to then hold down the power button to reset. I eventually figured out how to resolve that, It also could be funny with touchpad support on some of the Lenovo laptops. When you have to do xx numbers of devices you just want something quick and easy; though I do like Ubuntu for certain things such as running our UniFi controllers
So go for ultimate simplicity and get an iPad with one of those astronomically priced keyboards. Soooo much easier and faster (instant start to most video conferencing tools, anyone?).
Btw do not confuse a Kindle Fire with an iPad. Being forced to lodge a payment card with the Amazon App Store AND be forced to turn on 1-click purchasing is not my idea of user friendliness. Not even Android goes that far.
> Linux users already know that even decade-plus-old 64-bit kit with as little as four gigs of RAM is still entirely usable
This Linux user would maintain that (a) 4GB is not little, and (b) a 64-bit system ought to be capable of a RAM upgrade to more than 4GB. Otherwise, what was its point?
That aside, what exactly is the point? I mean, if I want to run Linux on a PC, and generally I do, then I run Linux on the PC. If I wanted Google involved, and I certainly don't, then I would install Android or ChromeOS. And if I had bought an early ChromeBook thingy which has now passed its "expiry date", whatever that is, then I would be considering instructing lawyers. But much more likely is that the hypothetical ChromeBook thingy had its pre-installed system wiped with extreme prejudice shortly after purchase swiftly followed by the installation of a real operating system.
-A.
"This Linux user would maintain that (a) 4GB is not little, and (b) a 64-bit system ought to be capable of a RAM upgrade to more than 4GB. Otherwise, what was its point?"
This Linux user has an MSI nettop that is 64-bit, cannot theoretically be upgraded beyond 4Gb thanks to an Atom processor and cannot practically be upgraded beyond 3Gb thanks to 1Gb soldered in memory. What's its point? It's small and light and just fine to take into libraries or archives to transcribe documents.
I have an elderly Dell Mini-10, which scores high on portability, but only has 2GB of memory. It will run Linux adequately - including support for the TV tuner and MPEG-2 "accelerator" card and would probably run it better with an SSD. However, it struggles with much in the way of web browsing owing to the memory constraint, so Chrome is actively contra-indicated I suspect.
My net-top is also an MSI 2GB/64-bit running Kubuntu. Slow, but fits in tiny bags no other PC will ....
The bottom of my man drawer are a HP Mini Inspiron 9" and a MSI 10" net-top. As they are 32 bit Atoms I've had to install Debian 11/KDE in case the Kubuntu machine fails. The EOL Chromebook, sadly, lies discarded and useless. Can't install ChromeOS Flex 'cos it's an ARM based processor and, apart from chrooting, no way to install any LinuxOS.
Pity because ChromeOS's killer feature, for me, was 'no boot time'. Just instant access to the web. But then I suppose i have a tablet for that.
Waiting for the day small ex-business Thinkpads flood the second-hand market because they won't officially run Win11. X270s are now dipping below £200. Will they reach £100 before 2025?
This Linux user would maintain ...
Indeed.
It is not my main box or a speed demon, but I run Linux Devuan Beowulf x86 on an Asus 1000HE (Intel Atom N280/2G RAM+150G storage) with the option to boot W98 for some odd applications I run every once in a blue moon.
Purchased it 2nd hand back in 2011 for ~US$300 and ten years after, it has more than paid for itself.
Runs fine and I always take it with me when I travel out of the city.
O.
"This Linux user would maintain that (a) 4GB is not little, and (b) a 64-bit system ought to be capable of a RAM upgrade to more than 4GB. Otherwise, what was its point?"
Not really, the majority of machines with DDR2 RAM in them (which was still commonplace for the first couple of years of the Windows 7 generation) have actually got 64-bit capable CPUs in them, even if they came with a 32-bit OS installed. Good luck upgrading a DDR2 laptop beyond 4GB of RAM.
There actually were a handful of DDR2 machines, particularly high end business laptops, that could accept up to 8GB DDR2 RAM, but the 4GB sticks themselves are insanely expensive and hard to find, to the point where you may as well just buy a second hand DDR3 laptop with 8GB already installed.
Readers of this site are not really the ideal audience for it.
But that relative you have with an old (or new but cheap) laptop who treats you as free tech support probably is.
- A familiar interface to the web (Chrome)
- Zero maintenance or free tech support from us Reg readers
- No slowing the system down to a crawl with antivirus
- And no phone calls to us resulting in three hours of backing things up and reinstalling because they screwed something up
"Presumably though, Google hopes that once businesses are paying for Google IDs so their staff can use Chrome OS Flex, they'll decide to save costs by eliminating other web apps."
If you want something that boots into a browser as a thin client why not just use the OS of your choice configured to boot into a browser and have your own choice of web service without having a Google ID if Google isn't your choice? You could even run your own service (e.g.NextCloud) to keep your data under your own control.
As others have mentioned, there are plenty of other alternatives to this, though, one useful thing it might do is help advertise them to the public; Google will get plenty of coverage when this is launched, and some articles might help inform people of other options.
Many of us know, unfortunately, just how poor some people are with computers. To sell this, Google will automate the install process as much as possible, and make it friendlier for the general public to install on an old machine (not that it is exactly hard to install Linux at present, but rather that many people seem to be almost afraid of their machines, and something going wrong). A de-Googled fork could be created, for anyone who wants to play around without dealing with Google, while some existing distros could potentially take a few useful pointers for making their install process more user-friendly for the general public.
It's not hard perhaps for most of the readers of El Reg to casually talk about replacing an operating system - but for Joe Public? The computer comes with the operating system it comes with. Joe has neither the expertise - no matter how little is needed - nor the interest in replacing his OS.
The computer - to Joe - is a unit complete unto itself. He buys a Windows machine, or you buy an Apple, or you buy, perhaps, a Chromebook. But for all practical purposes, he *can't* buy a Mint machine or a Redhat machine or a Gentoo machine. And why would he want to break his perfectly nice new machine by replacing the OS?
It doesn't matter how easy a Linux or BSD distro is to install or to use. We might do it... but Joe won't.
that's OK - I upvoted them as well.
The average Joe doesn't care what is actually going on - hence PHB style "Purple has the most RAM" type statements.
The days when a PC was a technical mystery worshipped by us (proportionally) few techs are long gone.
The only time you will get a mass deployed Linux on the desktop is via a Chromebook or Chrome OS Flex for exactly that reason - the mass buying public don't care, they just want a Mac or a Windows Box or a Chromebook at a price within their budget.
I wouldn't be surprised to find, in the future, that newer (than 11) versions of windows make it increasingly harder to do what you want with a PC because "there is no demand" - welcome to the Microsoft/Apple/Google cartel.
And contrary to the impression anyone reading this set of comments might get, Linux is not the most commonly installed desktop or laptop operating system. Because Joe Average and his partner might not want to remove the existing OS their device came with. If you know how to use the existing OS, why install something different and throw yourself back to be a total beginner, trying to learn lots of new stuff?
I agree, most people will not install an OS themselves. So what is the point of ChromeOS Flex?
Anyone who can install an OS will know about other OSes already and there are better choices out there.
The only thing that might happen is that if this gets enough publicity, then some people might find out it is possible to change OSes (or even what an OS is).
It "Might" work for some people.
But there are a good number of us who have decided to avoid having anything with a Google (or Alphabet) brand on it when it comes to software running hardware.
There is a reason that google dot com and 99% of the rest of their evil empire is blocked by my firewall. Chrome is nothing but spyware in my view. YMMV naturally..
My old MacBooks have been re-purposed and run Linux. Google can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Yours,
GOM of Hampshire.
I bought a Samsung Chromebook a few years ago that I use occasionally. Fired it up last year to find it was EOL. On the other hand I have a 17 year old windows laptop still going strong on windows 10.
When I have time I might put Linux on the Chromebook, but I have no intention of ever buying another one it's just not worth it.
,... Ignoring the fact its Google spyware, I'd like to see how they support the thousands, no, millions of combinations of graphics cards, processors, keyboards, mice, graphic tablets, scanners, printers etc.
I can see it just being a case of HP / Dell desktop works...peripherals, tough... Fancy graphic cards... Yeah, default settings.
Don't worry. The moment you start mentioning the fact that Linux has poor driver support you will be downvoted by penguins who will seek to blame the hardware manufacturers for not releasing the specifications. It's all them nasty hardware makers' fault. Nothing to do with penguins.
No, I think that you'll get downvotes for hardware vendors that deliver binary blobs and firmware for a specific and already ancient kernel version, and then never bother to update this and still refuse to release the source so that the community can maintain and improve their product.
Mind, I upgraded my old windows machines to linux last year, great success, they all now work!
Need to upgrade my wifes old window laptop as well... Microsoft inflicted an update on it and now it takes at least 20 minutes to boot and another 30 to load youtube... the only use for it anyway given that it only has 32gm ram.
I will upgrade that to mint and it will suddenly become useful as a computer, not the doorstop Microsofts updates made it.
Time for Microsoft to quite the PC software space as they have clearly lost the plot.
When I used to work for them they actually used their own shit... I guess they dont any more.
> The year of Linux on the desktop actually arrived a few years back
If you have low end demands for the desktop, yes.
> Chrome OS is a specialised Linux distro
Yet another distro. How many is it now? 20,000?
> originally based on Gentoo, with the Aura Shell ("ash")
Oh well that makes all the difference.
> it wasn't easy to install on an ordinary PC.
Yeah, let’s make it difficult for people.
> Chrome OS Flex still has some limitations
Let’s take a walk down Limitation Street, also know as Linux Alley.
> hardware that won't work
Well it's Linux. So let's have a list of hardware which is incompatible.
> so forget about dual-booting
Yeah, I want to entirely give my computer over to something with limitations.
> this means it should be possible
If you have enough time to waste on installing Yet Another Linux Distro.
> This isn't a general-purpose desktop OS
Throw away all your working applications and install this with-limitations Linux distro.
> a potential mass-market free client OS
Still talking about 'potential', not actual.
> it's just an extremely cut-down Linux distro that works well on very low-end hardware, and there are lots of those – but this one comes gratis
Like so many other Linux distros.
> It needs little maintenance and no antivirus or antimalware
So forget about installing it in a corporate environment with exactly those requirements.
> It's viable for organisations with little to no in-house Linux expertise because they won't need it
Seriously, who writes this nonsense?
> The number one cause of weird Linux problems, especially on older kit, is outdated firmware
Really? Not incompatibilities, lack of drivers, broken drivers, other requirements?
> old malware-infested Windows boxes
At last, a legitimate statement in this article. I agree that Windows boxen can be malware-infested. But not always.
It's the Distro Inferno
“but this one comes gratis from a big, well-known name and it has existing management tools.”
That big, well known name enjoys part of its well-known-ness to massive data slurping.
Which, that well known name, says is the reason for many of its gratis offerings.
So… what about that?
Installed this yesterday on an aging Acer laptop which had pretty much ground to a halt trying to run Windows. Yes, I know RasPi OS or Mint might be a "better" option but as a device to hand to aging in-laws who persist in downloading malware posing as revolutionary software to make your PC go faster it seems just perfect - a browser, lightweight word processor and Gmail are all they need and this should keep them out of trouble for a while.
The Acer isn't on the Certified Device list but everything - Trackpad / Bluetooth / WiFi / Sound, the usual suspects - seems to work well, the thing now hums along and battery life looks like it's roughly doubled!
Definitely worth heeding the advice to update the BIOS before starting - Acer (and others) only provide BIOS upgrades via Windows executables so if you've already hosed down the HD with Chrome then you're stuffed! (luckily thought about this in time...)
Would definitely be better if they supported Play Store / Android apps, but for specific use cases I think it's a pretty good solution.
Of course you can. The root certificates aren't secret. You can install them. You just need something to render the pages. The latest browsers may use Windows features that are newer than that, but you can use older ones or minimalistic ones that have a TLS library in them. It's not a great idea to do it, but it is possible.
If there's one thing the ubiquitous Raspberry Pi has taught us its that you don't need to constantly purchase new hardware to perform everyday tasks. The only reason why older computers run slower is that they get loaded with more and more clunky software, often in the form of OS upgrades.
Anyway, Google is bringing to the masses something Linux users have known for ever. Once the latest upgrade of Windows renders you PC unusable then you just switch to Linux and be done with it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
