Google set to push Chrome OS into quickly shifting market

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Computerworld

Chrome operating system set to ship in the fourth quarter, Google exec tells Computex audience

By Sharon Gaudin

Computerworld - Google is set to push its new Chrome operating system into a market that may be more ready for a new OS than it has been for 20 years or so, according to analysts.

Company officials at the Computex electronics exhibition in Taipei yesterday said the Linux-based Chrome OS is now slated to ship later this year.

Analysts note that the Google Chrome OS will arrive as Microsoft's new Windows 7 OS picks up steam, cloud computing continues to heat up and hardware vendors are constantly on the lookout for a solid platform to run competitors to Apple's incredibly popular iPad tablet computer.

"This is a big play for Google and the market is more ready to accept an alternative than it has been since the early 90s," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with the Enderle Group.




Read more: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177603/Google_set_to_push_Chrome_OS_into_quickly_shifting_market

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. I think I'll pass

Knowing how Google operates, their operating system might actually break Micro$oft's record for the number of built-in trojans and spyware, all for "internal use", of course.

[tridim]

3. I don't even want the damn Google toolbar on my system

[no limit]

6. I used to love google toolbar back when it was a simple search toolbar

now they had to add all kinds of crap.

[tridim]

16. I just set the default IE search box to use google

Easy peasy, and no nonsense.

Yea I know it's shocking fellow geeks, I don't use Firefox.

[no limit]

17. Hey same here

[Warpy]

14. No, but the search box in Firefox and MSIE is handy,

especially since you can choose among a number of different search engines.

I do agree about the damn toolbar, I got conned into it once, dumped it the same day. It made the Antichrist very queasy and I had enough trouble keeping the damn thing going as it was.

[cbdo2007]

35. I can't seem to help it - half the time when I push "No" to not install it with something

it installs anyways.

[no limit]

4. Microsoft has no built-in trojans and spyware. But by all means, dont let the facts get in your way

[cliffordu]

7. LOL.....

[no limit]

11. What a very informative reply on your part, thank you for that overwhelming knowledge

But lol back at you. The idea people think an operating system ships with viruses is a little laughable.

[cliffordu]

19. PLEASE look up M$ bugs online....all the way back to the beginning....

If Internet Exploder or Outbreak Express aren't viruses waiting to be activated I don't know what else they could possibly be called.....

:rofl:

[no limit]

26. Bugs are not viruses. Name me any software in the history of computers that didnt have bugs

and I'll give you a cookie.

Internet explorer 7+ is perfectly safe, outlook express doesn't come on anything past Vista. If you are using a 10 year old OS that's fine, but it is your responsibility to make sure you have all the patches you need.

None of this translates to microsoft windows being shipped with viruses which is an absolutely insane claim to make.

[cliffordu]

28. Some of us in the UNIX community believe Windoze IS a virus.

[boppers]

33. Two points.

1. What does age have to do with being shitty about security?
2. VMS.

[no limit]

38. Lol, what does age have to do with security? Is that a serious question?

It has everything in the world to do with security. Any software you have will have exploits and bugs in them, that's why every good software you have comes with patches on a constant basis. Believe it or not this is even true for your beloved Mac.

I don't get your second point, by all means feel free to elaborate. I don't care what software you have, it will have bugs and exploits in it.

[boppers]

51. No, shitty software needs constant patching.

Good software, much less so. This is not sheerly a function of time, it's a function of the quality of software distributed over time.

As to the second point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS

Uptime is measured in *decades* on VMS, not weeks-between-patch-tuesday. IOS is another good example, they only issue patches twice a year.

[zipplewrath]

9. That's not what norton says

Slightly in their defense, it's hard to separate out the spyware put in place by the third party applications that come with a computer, and those of Microsoft themselves. But MS is constantly arguing with me about my security settings and my start up software choices.

[no limit]

12. Well if you don't know how to use a computer don't blame microsoft

I don't mean to make that sound offensive but your lack of knowledge is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft does not ship with spyware or malware. I doubt norton told you otherwise, but despite that fact I would stay away from norton in general. Avira is a much better and alternative, and it's free:

http://www.free-av.com/

I can't count how many computers I've cleaned that were infected even with norton on. Same goes with Avira but I've actually seen Avira stop a threat before, not the case with norton.

[zipplewrath]

18. It's more of a case of definition

MS places software they consider "monitoring" sofware (or is placed their by third parties as part of the original build). Others consider that spyware, and to Norton (and some other codes) it also appears that way. You're arguing mostly semantics. The complaint is that MS places this monitoring software on in ways that encourage the user to concede to information sharing they might not otherwise choose to do. Our company blocks much of that from our business computers, although I tend to leave it on with my own machine.

[no limit]

27. So windows is now responsible for what 3rd parties put on your computer?

How so?

And I still have a hard time believing OEMs ship computers with preloaded malware or spyware. Do you have any examples of this what so ever?

This is not a matter of semantics. To claim that microsoft ships windows with malware or spyware install is a total fabrication.

[zipplewrath]

34. Windows DEFINES what they can put on

When you buy a computer from an OEM, the initial build is controlled/approved by Microsoft. So, yeah, they are "responsible".

[no limit]

37. Where in the world did you get that idea? Microsoft has no say in what OEMs put on their computers

and I am still waiting for an example from someone of an OEM putting viruses on a computer. You got one?

[zipplewrath]

39. They got sued for it

It came out during their trial as part of the antitrust lawwsuit. They controlled how the OEM's could set up the computers and what software could and could not be installed. To what degree they've been blocked from doing this still isn't clear.

And as I explained before, the issue was the monitoring software that some people consider to be "spyware" and in fact some antivirus software will consider it as such.

[no limit]

40. I dont know what case you are refering to. But again, Windows has no say in what OEMs put on

any OEM can buy a OEM disk from Microsoft and they are free to put on whatever they wish after that point.

And as I asked before, what specific examples do you have of this "monitoring software"?

[zipplewrath]

43. OEM's don't do that

OEM's don't "buy disks". They have arrangements with Microsoft to preload computers with software. As part of that arrangement, they agree on what will be put on the computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

[no limit]

44. I am aware of that case. That case from 1998 doesn't say what you are saying

It had to do with Microsoft packing internet explorer as part of Windows which gave them a monopoly on internet browsers. It did not saying anything about what OEMs can load and preload.

I am also fully aware that larger OEMs have licenses that don't require them to purchase disks, you are missing the point. The point is they are bound by the same license as smaller OEMs that do purchase the disks. Nothing in that license says that Microsoft must approve an OEM distribution.

So it boils down to this. Your original statement that Microsoft comes preloaded with malware was absolutely not true. You then tried to excuse this by saying Microsoft must approve what each OEM puts on their systems, also absolutely not true. Finally you said that some OEMs put on monitoring software, I have a feeling this is also absolutely not true on your part but I am waiting for you to prove me wrong by giving examples.

[zipplewrath]

46. This was what was going on

Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs),

These are the restrictions to which I refer.

[no limit]

48. What was restrictive about those licensing agreements?

The case dealt with the rebates OEMs got, not what they could and couldn't put on their systems.

[no limit]

49. Actually lets make this simple, read the agreement yourself:

http://oem.microsoft.com/public/sblicense/2008_sb_licenses/fy08_sb_license_english.pdf

Tell me where it says what you are claiming it says.

[CBGLuthier]

36. quoting "norton" = losing all credibility

Norton software is shit.

[zipplewrath]

45. Fine

But the point was that the reason some people consider the software that Microsoft includes as "spyware" is because various routines like that will detect them and label them as such.

[no limit]

50. You keep repeating this without giving examples. Until you give those examples stop repeating bs

[Amerigo Vespucci]

2. Until they make it as customizable as Firefox, they have nothing to "push"

I use RoboForm for all of my site passwords.

Unless Google Chrome becomes RoboForm-compliant, it will never become my primary browser.

I have a L-O-N-G list of what I consider essential "add-ons" in Firefox.

Until Google Chrome can match them, well...see above.

"Push" my ass.

[dbonds]

20. The Chromium OS is not the same thing as the Chrome browser...

But it does use the browser, which now you can have addons. And many of the firefox addon creators ported them to Chrome.

The Chromium OS is an Operating System with the browser as the main interface. It is meant strictly for cloud computing. It doesn't even use a hard drive. All data lives in the cloud.

[WeDidIt]

5. I'd actually use Chrome

if it wasn't the worst piece of shit OS I've ever seen.

And as far as Windows 7 goes, it's what I always dreamed Windows would be. Haven't had a single problem with it since I started running it.

[dbonds]

21. Exactly where did you see the OS, since it is not public and there isn't a beta?

[WeDidIt]

24. Ah, excuse me

I confused the upcoming OS with the piece of shit browser.

My bad.

[niceypoo]

25. Google chrome rocks

Not sure what you hate about it. It is 5 times faster than firefox or Explorer.

[JCMach1]

31. Yes it does! Especially as I hate the ver. of Firefox as it doesn't seem to block pop-ups

any more...

[TheWatcher]

30. Sure You Did.

Classic.



:rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Chrome Browser Now Rulez

Started out bad, but now it's my browser of choice, lightning fast, good UI, sturdy.

I'm looking forward to checking out the OS.

[alfredo]

13. It's pretty good, but still barfs on some sites.

[dbonds]

22. I use Chrome Browser as my main browser now...

It has by far the fastest javascript processing.

[avaistheone1]

10. Isn't cloud computing vulnerable in terms of losses of privacy?

Is it Windows or Chrome OS who has cloud computing?

[no limit]

15. Cloud computing is a blanket term that actually means the internet

so if you are on the internet you are cloud computing. Since we are having this conversation on the internet already you should be ok :).

In this case what they mean more of your applications will be processed over the internet than in the past. Which is the trend the internet is taking these days.

[dbonds]

23. Lets refine that definition a bit...

Cloud computing is for Web Applications. That means things like gmail, google apps, amazon s3, microsoft office online, zoho, and countless other web apps showing up. There are very few new desktop apps being made, most developers have moved to making web applications.

[no limit]

29. I just really hate that term for some reason

What makes gmail more of a cloud application than DU that's been around since 2001? The answer aside from fancy AJAX code is nothing. Both are web applications. I do get what they are trying to say but I'm just as annoyed by that term as I am by web 2.0 for some reason.

But yeah, web applications are the future. I wouldn't neccessarly say that there are few desktop apps being worked on at this point but web applications are starting to creep up on us. Another decade and people will look back on software installation the same as we look back on 56K now.

[rucky]

32. Aw, Snap!

Hope it's more stable than the browser.

[Romulox]

41. This actually sounds kind of crappy: Google chrome as a GUI for a Linux distro with all storage

on Google's servers? That sounds lame.

[Egnever]

42. Cant wait!

Its going to be loads of fun to play with a new OS

[alfredo]

47. Go for it. The more competition the better. We need people

who push the technology. We need risk takers and Google is taking a risk. Look at the risk taking at Apple. They went from being 90 days away from bankruptcy to one of the leading innovators in the industry. Google and Apple aren't always the good guys, but they push the market. So go for it Google!

I may not buy into their new OS, but I encourage their entry into the field of play.