Google Chrome OS
<div class="IPBDescription">Been a long time coming.</div><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html" target="_blank">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/int...-chrome-os.html</a>
A lot of people I know have just been waiting for the day when Google would try their hand at an operating system. After skimming the write up, this is the real deal, not some Web-based-OS crap.
They're going to focus on x86 hardware (Intel, PC stuff), and ARM chipsets (ARM is a big name in single board computing and for pet projects and the like. I think a lot of cellphones use ARM processors), targeting the embedded community.
A lot of people I know have just been waiting for the day when Google would try their hand at an operating system. After skimming the write up, this is the real deal, not some Web-based-OS crap.
They're going to focus on x86 hardware (Intel, PC stuff), and ARM chipsets (ARM is a big name in single board computing and for pet projects and the like. I think a lot of cellphones use ARM processors), targeting the embedded community.
Comments
Yeah, that's the only reason I run Windows now.
But even there, I will still probably set up a dual boot with windows as a just in case.
Netbooks however, people just pretty much want the web, and dont care what OS they use. I see Google doing well in the netbook world.
Android is slowly gaining traction. HTC is the only one that has got something passable to market thusfar.
--Scythe--
Netbooks? As they've stated?
<a href="http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/99279/mooninites.jpg" target="_blank">http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/99279/mooninites.jpg</a>
That is just epic.
Netbooks that cost $100 less because no Windows purchase. That could be a pretty big deal.
<!--quoteo(post=1716434:date=Jul 8 2009, 05:35 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 8 2009, 05:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716434"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Assuming it IS easy to use. Otherwise it overlaps with Linux. Same with netbooks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it will be easy to use. In fact, if Chrome is anything to go by, it will be infuriatingly simplistic for folks like us. Great for grandmothers though.
However based on experience in that situation as well, an active net connection will be required to exploit the Google OS to it's full capabilities.
The censorship features though would only apply to China flavours of the OS.
In other words: Hey, we copy all your files to our servers!
No thanks.
In other words: Hey, we copy all your files to our servers!
No thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have also stated somewhere (at one point) that they plan to create a system that all processing happens online, they've done that quite extensively with gmail, docs and other services they offer.
As much as I love the open source movement, a company shouldn't be forced to disclose the source code of their product to the public just because.
Besides we'll be using VMs in 10 years anyway.
That will need to run on some light weight operating system. :P
I knew there was a reason to keep my DOS 6.22 disks.
riiiiiight.
That being said, there was some talk a while back about Vista locking down drivers that weren't allowed by Microsoft. Any one know if this is true?
<!--quoteo(post=1716627:date=Jul 9 2009, 11:51 PM:name=DOOManiac)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DOOManiac @ Jul 9 2009, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why would they be forced to share when there are already open source alternatives? OpenGL/OpenAL/etc.
As much as I love the open source movement, a company shouldn't be forced to disclose the source code of their product to the public just because.
Besides we'll be using VMs in 10 years anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because most of those drivers are backlogged with nasty frameworks? Also, DirectX, while perhaps a little less friendly, lets you access the hardware at a lower level giving more room for optimizations.
That being said, DirectX is also a huge pain to code for and has its own stupid quirks.
As much as I love the open source movement, a company shouldn't be forced to disclose the source code of their product to the public just because.
Besides we'll be using VMs in 10 years anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I got nothing against keeping hold of your own stuff, heck I wouldn't share it! Although I hear a lot of whine from developers and keep an eye on the market share and with the way the economy is spiralling etc. it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, especially after Microsoft being forced to give European Windows 7 buyers an option between a set of internet browsers and is not allowed to automatically install their own product on their own software. Trying to think along that logic if internet explorer being shipped with Windows is causing anti-competition for browsing software, then direct x being shipped and only available to Windows can only be seen as anti-competitive towards the choices developers have to develop their games successfully and affordably across multiple platforms. I'm probably wrong but that's how it looks to me based on that court ruling and if that is so it's only a matter of time until Microsoft get their entire software range picked to pieces under silly laws and rulings and so forth.