I for one will try it out when its available, I like what they did with google wave and if thats anything to go by an operating system would be great !
I think it was rumored for a long time now so it's not really a surprise.
However! Open source??? That's quite something. I don't think Google ever did that before...
Does that mean that one could strip down the OS even more (no autoupdate thanks!!) Maybe even make some kind of superlightweight, Opencanvas like painting app/OS for underpowered laptops, and such ... (yeah Gimp could do that I guess but it sucks, right?)
On a more average level, it sounds fantastic for casual computer users.
sounds like good news to me, even though I've been using windows since forever, doesnt mean I'm particularly happy about how most things are done (which is why I've installed like 20 different little apps to make every little thing I do more simple -.-)
The biggest problem I can see me having is the hardware/software compatibility!
dual boot would be the first option whilst the games industry adjusts.. but I think maybe that DX would be redundant and some sort of generic APIs would be needed to take its place.
Pretty cool, I think that an actual company who could seriously threaten the likes of apple and microsoft would be able to push them to creating really new and innovative ideas for OS's.
I'm really looking forward to what comes of this, shame they're targeting only netbooks at first but it does make sense.
Pior: Their Phone/netbook OS 'Android' is already opensource, as is their Browser, as will be their 'Google Wave'. They're seriously not new to opensource at all.
OSX and Linux still lack compatibility with most software and they are fairly widespread, will this new OS really get so many users that it's a profitable option to develop for Chrome OS as well as Windows? And how much different will it be, easy porting or not? The fact that they want it to be heavily web based makes me wonder about how it will perform with most offline tasks.
At this point I can't see it succeeding huge right away. A successful browser is a totally different thing from a successful OS. I'm skeptical but I'd like to see it turn out well and become a good alternative to Windows, especially if it delivers on performance.
Sometimes Google's world domination attitude puts me off, but then I remember how much I use Gmail, Google maps, the search engine etc. And also that Microsoft is the same except they've already reached the point of world domination...
Most of the talk is that they're just doing a window manager, not a full OS. Most guess that it will implement X11, but it would be really interesting if it didn't...
Hell yes, chrome rocks. Imagine how much free RAM there would be for Photoshop if they took the same approach to the entire OS? Windows can fuck right off.
awesome. yeah it seems like its for things like netbooks but where does that leave android, as phones get more and more powerful will we really need 2 seperate OS's for netbooks and phones.
Gosh, stick to the flippin search engine. I don't want to buy anything that isn't a Microsoft PC or a Macintosh Workstation... >_>
I thought this too, until Gmail became the best webmail application ever! Then I started using Google Docs while writing up documents from any where that has an internet connection. No buggy bloated "Office" software to pay for. Google calender help me keep track of my scheduled events. Google Maps helps me find where I need to go. Youtube helps me share high quality videos with numerous people quickly. My iGoogle page lets me put all this functionality together in one location that I can access anytime anywhere.
And I didn't pay for any of this.
I welcome a new OS to try for notebooks. Especially if it's open source.
I thought this too, until Gmail became the best webmail application ever! Then I started using Google Docs while writing up documents from any where that has an internet connection. No buggy bloated "Office" software to pay for. Google calender help me keep track of my scheduled events. Google Maps helps me find where I need to go. Youtube helps me share high quality videos with numerous people quickly. My iGoogle page lets me put all this functionality together in one location that I can access anytime anywhere.
And I didn't pay for any of this.
I welcome a new OS to try for notebooks. Especially if it's open source.
And it's worth noting that we are not the average user. My parents are the average users, the people who use their computer to go on the internet and check out the weather, or buy things off ebay. People who send emails to their family. People who write 5 documents a year.
Google already provides the browser to access the net, mail, calendar and a document editor. Google provides most of the stuff the average user needs, so why not a free OS that runs well on cheap hardware?
dual boot would be the first option whilst the games industry adjusts.. but I think maybe that DX would be redundant and some sort of generic APIs would be needed to take its place.
Dude, OpenGL. Just because M$ has forced their developers to now stick with DX, doesn't mean their isn't a good alternative available.
But I digress. If this a cloud computing OS. M$ already has one in beta. Both will be bleh for our kind of user with the delays and net traffic. Just like the Network game system that's so overhyped, its funny.
I'd actually love an OS from Google. Seriously, have you used gmail or any other google applications? They're pretty damn efficient. Hell, some even moreso than the official Microsoft Office applications.
Google has been starting off with productive methods for today's standards for a while now, Microsoft is trying to recover theirs, Windows Vista and the upcoming release of Windows 7 is a tell-tale sign that Microsoft is losing it's footing.
fuck google. I love their web apps but I will never install their software. There's a reason that shit is free, besides ads. Installing their software basically gives them the right to rape all the data from your computer, AND install anything they want, remotely, without asking you. Will they actually do any of this? Who knows. But I don't like opening that door for them. I'll take bulky ms with some semblance of privacy over dirty forced communism google any day.
if you like this you should just get linux because that is all that it is, a google version of Linux..
......
its a google Linux distribution, thats it..
i mean i think its cool and all, i like linux but they are not making their own os..
That in itself I like for two reasons:
1. Linux is good. It works, it's secure, it runs on low performance hardware.
2. Windows has Microsoft, OSX has Apple, both well known names TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMER. Linux doesn't have that brand name association, and if someone like Google champions it then other companies could start to release more applications for linux - of course this is the opposite of what Googles main goal of moving everything to the cloud seems to be.
Ah I'm skeptical. Atm most distros are just reskins with marginal differences.
This won't become mainstream until Linux changes. Linux isn't suited for mainstream yet.
Even in heavy GUI distros like Ubuntu alot of stuff requires you to use the Terminal and I've still found that they're a lot harder to use.
If google can give me linux that doesn't require me to go into the terminal to do simple stuff I'll be happy.
No kidding. GUIs, while slower and less efficient in many cases, are still the things that are easiest for end users unless you're some sort of hyper-nerd with a disdain for buttons. If I want to update the OS, I don't want to type a bunch of obscure crap into a terminal if the alternative is pressing a big, shiny button with "UPDATE" written on it.
I think there is more low level stuff going on. They are starting with Linux, but Linux is open source and they may change some of how it works.
Plus, don't underestimate how much the UI matters. It matters tremendously. No matter what OS I use, I still find (as does everyone) thousands of little annoyances and inefficiencies. Lots of these are due to the fact that OSX and Windows have a long history and the new Windows is the old Windows with some tweaks.
Google is designing the UI from the ground up. It will still use windowing, but considering how much they kicked everyone's ass with the UI for the Chrome browser, I can't wait to see what they do with file management, task switching, etc.
If they make a great new UI for a fundamentally sound Linux distro, that's a huge win.
Sounds interesting but feel the same as most of you that the search engine is amazing stuff but things like the google search bar are too open to risks, don't want adverts appearing on my desktop thanks but reading peoples interpretation of the software after it's been released a while should be eye opening.
BUT
Right now it would just feel strange to see the latest pc game with a google compatible lable on it:poly141:
Well, a large hurdle that the new Google OS will have to surmount is DirectX. Unfortunately, the majority of PC games are currently being developed for and distributed on Windows. So any casual users who opt for the Google OS will find themselves sadly lacking in a selection of quality game titles.
One thing Google might want to consider is integrating a suite of game development tools into their OS. They are going to need some way to convince developers to make games for their new software platform.
OpenGL is at least as good as DirectX. The main reason people go DirectX is because they are developing cross platform games to run on the XBox. Maybe if the GoogleOS catches on we can see a return to some real PC games
Honestly i dont think the target market for google's OS is hardcore pc gamers, i mean really guys, how much does playing pc games really represent, when compared to the vast % of users who do little more then browse the web, check email, post on facebook, and do word processing?
Google is smart enough to cater its OS to the vast majority of people who actually use computers, not a very small market such as the hardcore gamer scene.
Even those hardcore users have a good us for an OS like this, many of us have HTPCs, laptops, internet PCs etc that are used for little more than browsing the web anyway.
Even the best selling, most main-stream games out there only have about 8 million in sales(halo etc), compare that to about 365 million people who have computers, and you represent a teeeny 2% market share, and hell, thats an xbox game anyway.
[edit] Sims sold about 16 million, ok, so a 4% market share
Google is smart enough to cater its OS to the vast majority of people who actually use computers, not a very small market such as the hardcore gamer scene.
That is a good point. PC gaming isn't what it once was. And a lot of the common portals for more casual-focused on-line gaming are already available on Linux. (such as the Flash player, and I'm pretty sure that Unity's web-player can also run on Linux) Even though a lot of modern PC game developers only release their titles on Windows, that doesn't rule out Google's OS as a viable portal for gaming in general.
Also, the widespread issue with piracy is probably more of an issue for PC developers. I wonder if Google will attempt to implement some manner of secure on-line distribution for applications on the Google OS. (A kind of iTunes for Google OS software) Releasing an OS based on open-source is fine and good for anyone who is happy with open-source software. (such as me) But if you want to attract developers to your platform, you need to provide a certain degree of security.
Sims sold about 16 million, ok, so a 4% market share
I agree that gamers are the smaller percentage when it comes to pc users, but not this small.
Using the sales of 1 game in the "simulation" genre is hardly a definitive way to conclude there are only 16 million pc gamers...
There is no "1 game" that every pc gamer has and its absurd to think there is... I bet most people who play sims havent bought many FPSes, and most FPS'ers havent bought the sims. Same applies to all the other genres. And then multiply those differences in genres by the games in each genre - for example, not everyone who bought cod4 also bought TF2.
I don't like the sound of a web-centric OS. I do my best to keep my computer from going online for any reason when I'm not actively using the Internet for something. An OS based around the web sounds like it would be next to impossible to effectively have control over. Google can already read all my email and see everything I search for, and their traffic analysis servers seem to be contacted in the loading of nearly every website too. The function of their primary software (the search engine) is to be a searchable database of pretty much the entire web. If they make an OS that's intended to be integrally tied to the web, it's not at all unlikely that they'd collect and catalogue as much information as possible from that as well. I don't know what they would intend to DO with all the info about how everyone uses their computers, but I can't trust a panopticon, now matter how benevolent it appears to be.
Also, aside from the privacy concerns, I've seen enough scifi to question the wisdom of letting a single corporation install an inherently web-ready OS on every piece of computing hardware in the world. Maybe it's a stretch, but it just seems like one tiny step away from possibly enabling a corporately controlled worldwide botnet. I know that's how I'd do it if I had any interest in world domination.
I agree that gamers are the smaller percentage when it comes to pc users, but not this small.
Using the sales of 1 game in the "simulation" genre is hardly a definitive way to conclude there are only 16 million pc gamers...
There is no "1 game" that every pc gamer has and its absurd to think there is... I bet most people who play sims havent bought many FPSes, and most FPS'ers havent bought the sims. Same applies to all the other genres. And then multiply those differences in genres by the games in each genre - for example, not everyone who bought cod4 also bought TF2.
So combining these 2 sources, "pc gamers" make up roughly 10-15% of the number of pc users
Hell lets be generous and say 20%, that is still a pretty small market share to focus your development towards.
1 billion makes my point even MORE clear, and remember i am talking hardcore pc games, people who need bleeding edge tech to run they're games. There is a HUGE casual/flash games market that i'm sure google has plans on supporting.
The most popular game by far, WoW, has about 10 million active users. Or a teeny 1% of your 1 billion number, i honestly dont think the pc games industry is 20x as large as the people who play WoW, i just dont buy it. WoW to a certain extent IS the pc games industry as it currently stands.
It will be wellcome if it's good ^^, if not, Windows!
It's foolish to make a linux distribution and call it new os... there are greater alternatives now as kubuntu ¬¬
Anyone knows Bing?
Its far from foolish, i think you really fail to realize how important name recognition is. Who of the average consumer could tell you what the fuck kubuntu is? Nobody, thats who. Now google? Yeah, everyone and they're mother knows what google is. Its simple marketing.
Replies
Gosh, stick to the flippin search engine. I don't want to buy anything that isn't a Microsoft PC or a Macintosh Workstation... >_>
I for one will try it out when its available, I like what they did with google wave and if thats anything to go by an operating system would be great !
also competition for MS is always a good thing...
However! Open source??? That's quite something. I don't think Google ever did that before...
Does that mean that one could strip down the OS even more (no autoupdate thanks!!) Maybe even make some kind of superlightweight, Opencanvas like painting app/OS for underpowered laptops, and such ... (yeah Gimp could do that I guess but it sucks, right?)
On a more average level, it sounds fantastic for casual computer users.
The biggest problem I can see me having is the hardware/software compatibility!
I'm really looking forward to what comes of this, shame they're targeting only netbooks at first but it does make sense.
At this point I can't see it succeeding huge right away. A successful browser is a totally different thing from a successful OS. I'm skeptical but I'd like to see it turn out well and become a good alternative to Windows, especially if it delivers on performance.
Sometimes Google's world domination attitude puts me off, but then I remember how much I use Gmail, Google maps, the search engine etc. And also that Microsoft is the same except they've already reached the point of world domination...
you're joking, right?
I thought this too, until Gmail became the best webmail application ever! Then I started using Google Docs while writing up documents from any where that has an internet connection. No buggy bloated "Office" software to pay for. Google calender help me keep track of my scheduled events. Google Maps helps me find where I need to go. Youtube helps me share high quality videos with numerous people quickly. My iGoogle page lets me put all this functionality together in one location that I can access anytime anywhere.
And I didn't pay for any of this.
I welcome a new OS to try for notebooks. Especially if it's open source.
And it's worth noting that we are not the average user. My parents are the average users, the people who use their computer to go on the internet and check out the weather, or buy things off ebay. People who send emails to their family. People who write 5 documents a year.
Google already provides the browser to access the net, mail, calendar and a document editor. Google provides most of the stuff the average user needs, so why not a free OS that runs well on cheap hardware?
Once I get my ideal setup of 'computer connected to net' and 'computer i get shit done on' google os might be what i want.
Dude, OpenGL. Just because M$ has forced their developers to now stick with DX, doesn't mean their isn't a good alternative available.
But I digress. If this a cloud computing OS. M$ already has one in beta. Both will be bleh for our kind of user with the delays and net traffic. Just like the Network game system that's so overhyped, its funny.
Im a complete noob when it comes to this but has OpenGL been keeping up with DX in terms of features ?
Google has been starting off with productive methods for today's standards for a while now, Microsoft is trying to recover theirs, Windows Vista and the upcoming release of Windows 7 is a tell-tale sign that Microsoft is losing it's footing.
from the google blog
"Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."
so they made a gui for linux... i think its a pretty far streach to call this a "google OS"
its a google Linux distribution, thats it..
i mean i think its cool and all, i like linux but they are not making their own os..
That in itself I like for two reasons:
1. Linux is good. It works, it's secure, it runs on low performance hardware.
2. Windows has Microsoft, OSX has Apple, both well known names TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMER. Linux doesn't have that brand name association, and if someone like Google champions it then other companies could start to release more applications for linux - of course this is the opposite of what Googles main goal of moving everything to the cloud seems to be.
Hmm interesting Adobe is working with google on the OS.
This won't become mainstream until Linux changes. Linux isn't suited for mainstream yet.
Even in heavy GUI distros like Ubuntu alot of stuff requires you to use the Terminal and I've still found that they're a lot harder to use.
Also this is for netbooks, not desktops.
wired says it will only take a few seconds to boot.
like linux?
i have linux running on my cell phone, its really fast..
"supersystem will change everyday life"
"you're computer becomes:"
"easier"
"faster"
"smarter"
--google will crush windows, pages 2 3 and 4. lol
No kidding. GUIs, while slower and less efficient in many cases, are still the things that are easiest for end users unless you're some sort of hyper-nerd with a disdain for buttons. If I want to update the OS, I don't want to type a bunch of obscure crap into a terminal if the alternative is pressing a big, shiny button with "UPDATE" written on it.
I think there is more low level stuff going on. They are starting with Linux, but Linux is open source and they may change some of how it works.
Plus, don't underestimate how much the UI matters. It matters tremendously. No matter what OS I use, I still find (as does everyone) thousands of little annoyances and inefficiencies. Lots of these are due to the fact that OSX and Windows have a long history and the new Windows is the old Windows with some tweaks.
Google is designing the UI from the ground up. It will still use windowing, but considering how much they kicked everyone's ass with the UI for the Chrome browser, I can't wait to see what they do with file management, task switching, etc.
If they make a great new UI for a fundamentally sound Linux distro, that's a huge win.
BUT
Right now it would just feel strange to see the latest pc game with a google compatible lable on it:poly141:
One thing Google might want to consider is integrating a suite of game development tools into their OS. They are going to need some way to convince developers to make games for their new software platform.
Google is smart enough to cater its OS to the vast majority of people who actually use computers, not a very small market such as the hardcore gamer scene.
Even those hardcore users have a good us for an OS like this, many of us have HTPCs, laptops, internet PCs etc that are used for little more than browsing the web anyway.
Even the best selling, most main-stream games out there only have about 8 million in sales(halo etc), compare that to about 365 million people who have computers, and you represent a teeeny 2% market share, and hell, thats an xbox game anyway.
[edit] Sims sold about 16 million, ok, so a 4% market share
That is a good point. PC gaming isn't what it once was. And a lot of the common portals for more casual-focused on-line gaming are already available on Linux. (such as the Flash player, and I'm pretty sure that Unity's web-player can also run on Linux) Even though a lot of modern PC game developers only release their titles on Windows, that doesn't rule out Google's OS as a viable portal for gaming in general.
Also, the widespread issue with piracy is probably more of an issue for PC developers. I wonder if Google will attempt to implement some manner of secure on-line distribution for applications on the Google OS. (A kind of iTunes for Google OS software) Releasing an OS based on open-source is fine and good for anyone who is happy with open-source software. (such as me) But if you want to attract developers to your platform, you need to provide a certain degree of security.
I agree that gamers are the smaller percentage when it comes to pc users, but not this small.
Using the sales of 1 game in the "simulation" genre is hardly a definitive way to conclude there are only 16 million pc gamers...
There is no "1 game" that every pc gamer has and its absurd to think there is... I bet most people who play sims havent bought many FPSes, and most FPS'ers havent bought the sims. Same applies to all the other genres. And then multiply those differences in genres by the games in each genre - for example, not everyone who bought cod4 also bought TF2.
The number of pc gamers has to be much much bigger than just 16 million. I dont know the facts and figures, just going by logic... but this guy apparently has some numbers for you; http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/03/03/just-how-many-pc-gamers-are-there/
Also I dont think the 365 million computer users is accurate either, a bit of googling has told me theres around 1 billion users~
http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0904.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/23/worldwide-pcs-in-use-surpass-1-billion-next-billion-to-come-in/
So combining these 2 sources, "pc gamers" make up roughly 10-15% of the number of pc users
Also, aside from the privacy concerns, I've seen enough scifi to question the wisdom of letting a single corporation install an inherently web-ready OS on every piece of computing hardware in the world. Maybe it's a stretch, but it just seems like one tiny step away from possibly enabling a corporately controlled worldwide botnet. I know that's how I'd do it if I had any interest in world domination.
A light and friendly GUI makes me happy though.
It's foolish to make a linux distribution and call it new os... there are greater alternatives now as kubuntu ¬¬
Anyone knows Bing?
Hell lets be generous and say 20%, that is still a pretty small market share to focus your development towards.
1 billion makes my point even MORE clear, and remember i am talking hardcore pc games, people who need bleeding edge tech to run they're games. There is a HUGE casual/flash games market that i'm sure google has plans on supporting.
The most popular game by far, WoW, has about 10 million active users. Or a teeny 1% of your 1 billion number, i honestly dont think the pc games industry is 20x as large as the people who play WoW, i just dont buy it. WoW to a certain extent IS the pc games industry as it currently stands.
Its far from foolish, i think you really fail to realize how important name recognition is. Who of the average consumer could tell you what the fuck kubuntu is? Nobody, thats who. Now google? Yeah, everyone and they're mother knows what google is. Its simple marketing.