Not because we know Google Chrome will totally rock. We know close to nothing about the product. What we know is that Google has already developed Chrome, a web browser allegedly used regularly by 30 million people, an impressive number which I'm quite certain includes exactly nobody I know. The Official Google Blog says their OS product, built for and designed to run the web browser, will be available on small netbooks starting in 2010. It promises to open-source the code, which leads many techie bloggers to hope that the program will ultimately pack all sorts of sweet web apps which we can only pretend to guess at. But how would Google Chrome OS actually be better for your computer?
Wired goes brainstorming. Charlie Sorrel envisions a Chrome OS that is cheap, even downloadable from online, fast enough to deliver boot up times in seconds rather than minutes, web-based so that every file you write, create or download is automatically saved to an online cove you can tap into from a home desktop or road laptop, and brimming with cheap applications that make watching videos, storing music and making presentations easier than ever. In other words, Chrome is a huge power grab aimed at the always-connected, on-the-road techie whose small netbook needs something cheap and fast that won't crash or sap battery life with boot up times. If Windows sometimes feels like protective medieval chain mail that weighs down your small laptop's memory, Google wants to provide a softer KEVLAR option for your computer.And that, PC World says, is precisely why it will fail. Netbooks aren't the whole world, in fact they're a small (if growing) segment of the PC market, and if Google starts making headway into the netbook realm, Microsoft can wield its awesome market-dominating position and simply give away a cheap version of its established, well known netbook operating system to edge Chrome out of the market.
Like I said, and back and forth they go. We could further guesstimate Chrome's market capacity, but the fact is that Google's initial description of Chrome is a black-and-white outline that leaves all the coloring in to the imagination of tech bloggers.
I've used Chrome for a while now and vastly prefer it to IExplorer because it is a lot faster and more reliable.
I think the name of the new product is Chrome OS. Chrome (without the OS) is an existing web browser. Chrome and Chrome OS are two very different products (but maybe Chrome will evolve into Chrome OS).
If Google can force MS to give away product, then Google will be happy.
I find Chrome vastly superior to Internet Explorer, which is clunky, bug-ridden and slow. I have used Firefox, which is also better than IE by a solid margin, but Chrome is the most impressive of the three by far.
My guess is that the best Google can hope to do in the short run is corner the netbook market. It seems like they're kind of trying to make an OS that turns PCs into glorified iPhones.
Professionals of all types will still be limited to working with files, using locally-installed apps for the foreseeable future. No matter how quick an operating system is, you just can't move large data sets over the internet fast enough. Just imagine having to download large Photoshop files every time you need to do a few edits.
However, I hope that this challenge convinces Microsoft what many of us have known for a long time - that their operating systems really need to be quick, lightweight, and efficient, not flashy but bloated. Real competition among operating systems should help force the quality up from all of the major players. Maybe Google OS will be a game-changer, but I doubt it will be a Microsoft-killer ... yet.
I use and like Google Chrome. There are two things that keep me from using it more. 1) It's Windows-only, though they've promised a Mac version for a long time -- and it is quite peculiar that the centerpiece of their anti-Msft strategy would work only on Windows. 2) It lacks Firefox's indispensable "extensions."
I am on Chrome right now -- but agree with Jim about the Mac (which I prefer -- years ago, I wrote the Mac column for Computer Shopper). What isn't clear from the announcement is whether Google intends to try to have Chrome run Windows Apps or whether Google will also attempt to wean users from Microsoft Office. I know that one can run any combination of MS-Office (Wintel and Mac), OpenOffice (for Linux, Mac, and Wintel), Google Docs, and other compatible systems and simply pass the files back and forth -- I do it all the time -- but the general public has not been able to be sold on the ease of doing this or even the belief that it can be done. It will not be an easy task to convince the public to "give up Microsoft Office".
Speaking of Google "taking on Microsoft", does anyone get Google's "revolutionary data base", "Fusion Tables"? I know that I don't and I've used and taught database for years -- I see no query language, no mention of "keys", etc. I don't get it -- help me -- johnmac13@gmail.com
I think Mr Fallows' point about the lack of a Mac version for Chrome makes sense at one level - but perhaps Google has been aiming to go after Microsoft for a long time, and so is focussing on the big opponent's key area, and pushing through with that, rather than worrying about the Apple market, which is relatively unimportant from such a perspective?
.
On Firefox/Chrome, I am not so sure that Chrome "needs" extensions. It seems to function very well as is, is extremely reliable, very nicely designed and efficient, and so far appears to lack for nothing. The integration of Google search and the URL bar is an especially elegant feature, combined with use of tabs, and the way it makes your most read sites available first up.
I use Mac OSX, Linux (Ubuntu) and Windows XP, so I am very motivated be able to use the same browser (and bookmarks) on all, and the Chrome browser simply is not an option, as Fallows observes.
I disagree completely with nickzi about the lack of need for extensions. To name just two FireFox extensions that I find indispensible, LibX (http://www.libx.org/), which makes library resources far more accessible, and Zotero (http://www.zotero.org/) which is an essential part of a researcher's toolkit. Nothing comparable exists for Chrome.
Based on what little we know about the Chrome OS at this early stage, it appears that it will be another Linux distribution. After becoming a recent convert to Ubuntu, I hope never to spend another dollar on anything Microsoft. If Google can produce a lightweight Linux distribution that runs well on low-end hardware such as an Atom-powered netbook, I will welcome it.
Microsoft's Vista disaster and the netbook phenomenon have shown computer users that they don't need a bloated OS and fast hardware to work effectively, and anything that runs well on low-end hardware will run even better on high-end hardware, so the Chrome OS needn't be just a netbook OS.
Mr. Selden,
I am faced with buying a laptop and consider using Ubuntu, Firefox and Zoho for the office suite (Zoho does not work well with Chrome and it has a nice CRM system). How much tech trouble do I have anticipate?
If you wish, you can answer me to jack.vandijk@gmail.com.
Thank you for your advice.
Jack van Dijk
I just installed the latest pre-release ("unstable") version of the Chromium browser on a Linux (Ubuntu 9.04) netbook. It imported my bookmark file from FF3, and is probably twice as fast as FF3 -- very impressive.
It's not intuitive for people used to pull-down menus -- as it doesn't use them and, for basic functions, requires right-clicking of a mouse -- something that Mac-only users aren't used to. I like it -- but a Mac version would have to be somewhat different.
johnmac13@gmail.com
A couple of points: Linux was supposed to take over some portion of the desktop, and while it was technically capable of doing so, it did not. Secondly, if history is a guide, Google won't support the OS with front line, end user support - it's not what Google does. If such an OS is to succeed, there has to be a single version of it to avoid forks and the cacaphony that killed desktop Linux, and it has to Just Work, with zero further ado.
Google has the resources to get behind such an effort and stay there for a very long time. But at some point they need to move beyond their initial good fortune with search, and come out and tell their users what they want them to do, to seriously commit to something, vs throwing things at the wall, nonchalantly observing what sticks (Orkut, OpenSocial, Google Voice), and expecting users to follow because they are Google.
Hey,this is my first time here. I usually read your print version.
I used Google Chrome for a while since it's launch, but reverted back to my fav. Firefox.
I am a big fan of Google's approach to product development. Try numerous things and see what market cozy up against. Examples are numerous - gmail, Orkut (in Asia), and Blogger.
On the topic of OS, this won't be Google's first attempt. Let us not forget Android. I think Google is going to let the community - users,developers, and powerful OEMS - decide.
Glad you jumped in! Hope you find the water to your liking. I think they're open-sourcing of the material is, you're right, an important part of their strategy. My understanding is that they're doing their best to distinguish Chrome from Android, because they want this to be seen as a truly new and groundbreaking project to design the simplest OS on the market rather than say: We're updated this thing Android that very few people have heard of.
I agree with SaaS; the strength of Google is in its product diversity. The strongest products (search, maps, earth, etc.) dominate while the others do not. However, unlike Microsoft or even traditional open source projects like Firefox, Google just doesn't seem to invest as much in any of its individual projects. Google search was groundbreaking at its time, and I keep going back to it, but it could use a hefty dose of strengthening (how about killing all those stupid aggregator sites and google bombers). Google has some nifty web apps, like Documents, but I'm unlikely to ditch Word and I'm definitely not switching from Powerpoint. Chrome looks nice, but the extendability of Firefox makes it my choice by a long shot.
Don't overlook Apple's Safari. I haven't tried it yet in Windows, but this is the best build yet for Mac in terms of compatibility and speed. Firefox now seems clumsy in comparison.
and Opera -- from which you can host website from your client -- and I use Flock, a great browser if you also use Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. -- it's Firefox technology with Social Media interfaces.
Really, it comes down to whichever you like -- as long as it's not IE
johnmac13@gmail.com
What matters for Google's Chrome OS is that it exist -- as a finished thing that runs a human's dealings with her PC-like device.
There is no smack-down. As a first order of business Chrome OS doesn't have to win hearts or convert anybody. It just needs to exist, show up on this device or that, and go from there.
Maybe it'll fit your needs on some device you buy a year from now. Maybe not. Maybe you (or your mom, or company, or whomever) have investments in familiarity or applications that select you out of anything that ain't Windows or OS X -- or Gnome, I suppose. That's fine. Not everything's about you.
Every day, some new (young) user picks up a PC-like device and learns to use it. Every six months, the bounds of what she does diverge a full notch from what her elders do. Every year, the form of devices breaks the rules for how and when we use them. Every minute, the network de-institutionalizes some difficult thing.
Chrome OS (and similar) doesn't need you at all. It's only interested in the willing, the new, and the passage of time.
LQ
http://quilllio.com/
Ahem. http://quillio.com/