Google Chrome OS Demo

Google Chrome OS is an open source operating system for people who spend most of their time on the web built around the core tenets of speed, simplicity and security. This is a demo video to give you a feel for the Google Chrome OS user experience.

Advertisement





16 Responses to Google Chrome OS Demo

  1. Okay, I ‘get it’ and all, but still, what’s the point?

    All of those “apps” are just websites. He said it himself – anything that is online can work as an app in Chrome OS. Great, right? But look at it the other way – everything that’s an app is already online, ready to be accessed by Chrome on a Windows 7 machine (Gmail, Picasa, Google Docs, etc). Sure, there’s some things you can’t get, like the USB/camera interface, but you don’t need them if you already have a fully-functioning OS on your computer. And even then, I’m pretty sure when I plug those things in, I can access them from the file-upload part of most uploading websites anyway.

    More than that, if they’re just websites, I can only access their full functionality when the machine is online. Great.

    Saves space? Great, but “all of the data is in the cloud” anyway, so what am I saving space for? The meagre amount of diskspace I’d use while offline, that’s instantly thrown back into the cloud when I reconnect. I have a 120GB hard-drive that’s gonna be essentially wasted. Thanks, Google.

    • More than that, it seems for the first time that Google didn’t simply make a product that makes it easier/better to do stuff, they made it just to compete.

      Which is great if they actually put thought into a great product, but they didn’t, as pointed out by my major flaws, and I’m not even that much of a techno-analyst.

      • “product that makes it easier/better to do stuff,”

        I’d say that the 7 second boot time, the minimal usage of processing just to run the UI is a HUGE improvement over the bloated carcass of Windows anyday.

        I think you’re forgetting that this OS is targetted at Netbooks, which are designed to be pretty-much always “online” anyways. So if you have a user who is always online, wouldn’t you want to make an OS that maximizes that sphere of usage?

        • I have a netbook. That’s my point.

          I was willing to update from XP to 7, because it had actual features I could use.

          Yes, the netbook is great for online stuff, but more than that, it’s a travel machine. And when you’re travelling, you can’t always be online.

          That hard-drive is full of films and tv shows for me to watch when I’m on long coach journeys.

          I also take it to a local library where I’m writing a web series with my former coursemate.

          I couldn’t do the main two things I want to do with a lightweight, tiny computer that’s made for travelling.

          Most people actually buy netbooks to take out of the house so they can do things they’d normally do on a computer (sure, you can’t massively multi-task, but most people don’t tend to have more than 5 windows open at a time anyway) without breaking their backs/arms with a heavy laptop case. No-one really buys them for sitting on a sofa in their own home when they already have a desktop.

          Yes, you can buy a USB WiFi thing, but literally no-one I know with a netbook (and I know quite a few now) has one, so the Chrome OS is totally wasted on people wanting to get out and about with their netbook. And that would make the netbook itself wasted, too. Not to mention the speeds of those USB things are pretty slow, too.

          As I said, if you want the apps that come with Chrome OS, you can get them already. There is actually nothing new in the OS that can’t be found online in Firefox/Chrome/IE/Opera/etc, which makes it pointless.

          “Hey, here’s an OS that strips your computer down to stuff that can already be done online, except you can’t do everything else that can’t be done online.”

        • I’m not saying the boot time and minimal processing isn’t admirable, but what we’re talking about here is a computer with pretty much only a web browser that can run app-driven websites that can already be used on any other browser with a full operating system.

          If I said to you: “I’m gonna give you a super-bionic pair of legs that can run faster than everyone else, except I’m gonna chop off your hands so you can’t do anything else you usually do.”, would you be up for it?

          That’s basically what Google’s asking of us.

    • “I have a 120GB hard-drive that’s gonna be essentially wasted. Thanks, Google.”

      I would say, “I no longer have to buy a 120 gb hard-drive. Thanks, Google!”

  2. Okay, I 'get it' and all, but still, what's the point?

    All of those "apps" are just websites. He said it himself – anything that is online can work as an app in Chrome OS. Great, right? But look at it the other way – everything that's an app is already online, ready to be accessed by Chrome on a Windows 7 machine (Gmail, Picasa, Google Docs, etc). Sure, there's some things you can't get, like the USB/camera interface, but you don't need them if you already have a fully-functioning OS on your computer. And even then, I'm pretty sure when I plug those things in, I can access them from the file-upload part of most uploading websites anyway.

    More than that, if they're just websites, I can only access their full functionality when the machine is online. Great.

    Saves space? Great, but "all of the data is in the cloud" anyway, so what am I saving space for? The meagre amount of diskspace I'd use while offline, that's instantly thrown back into the cloud when I reconnect. I have a 120GB hard-drive that's gonna be essentially wasted. Thanks, Google.

    • More than that, it seems for the first time that Google didn't simply make a product that makes it easier/better to do stuff, they made it just to compete.

      Which is great if they actually put thought into a great product, but they didn't, as pointed out by my major flaws, and I'm not even that much of a techno-analyst.

      • "product that makes it easier/better to do stuff,"

        I'd say that the 7 second boot time, the minimal usage of processing just to run the UI is a HUGE improvement over the bloated carcass of Windows anyday.

        I think you're forgetting that this OS is targetted at Netbooks, which are designed to be pretty-much always "online" anyways. So if you have a user who is always online, wouldn't you want to make an OS that maximizes that sphere of usage?

        • I have a netbook. That's my point.

          I was willing to update from XP to 7, because it had actual features I could use.

          Yes, the netbook is great for online stuff, but more than that, it's a travel machine. And when you're travelling, you can't always be online.

          That hard-drive is full of films and tv shows for me to watch when I'm on long coach journeys.

          I also take it to a local library where I'm writing a web series with my former coursemate.

          I couldn't do the main two things I want to do with a lightweight, tiny computer that's made for travelling.

          Most people actually buy netbooks to take out of the house so they can do things they'd normally do on a computer (sure, you can't massively multi-task, but most people don't tend to have more than 5 windows open at a time anyway) without breaking their backs/arms with a heavy laptop case. No-one really buys them for sitting on a sofa in their own home when they already have a desktop.

          Yes, you can buy a USB WiFi thing, but literally no-one I know with a netbook (and I know quite a few now) has one, so the Chrome OS is totally wasted on people wanting to get out and about with their netbook. And that would make the netbook itself wasted, too. Not to mention the speeds of those USB things are pretty slow, too.

          As I said, if you want the apps that come with Chrome OS, you can get them already. There is actually nothing new in the OS that can't be found online in Firefox/Chrome/IE/Opera/etc, which makes it pointless.

          "Hey, here's an OS that strips your computer down to stuff that can already be done online, except you can't do everything else that can't be done online."

        • I'm not saying the boot time and minimal processing isn't admirable, but what we're talking about here is a computer with pretty much only a web browser that can run app-driven websites that can already be used on any other browser with a full operating system.

          If I said to you: "I'm gonna give you a super-bionic pair of legs that can run faster than everyone else, except I'm gonna chop off your hands so you can't do anything else you usually do.", would you be up for it?

          That's basically what Google's asking of us.

  3. I’m actually kind of thrilled at this idea. I purchased a EEE PC a few years back when they were still young and horrible. It came with a crappy, ‘special’ Linux OS that catered to people who wanted to learn Chinese.
    I had a spare copy of XP nearby, so I put that on it. Then came the problems. The hard drive was ridiculously small and could barely fit the OS. It took forever to boot, and mostly I used it for the web and for Evernote For Windows.
    Then I tried Ubuntu. It took less time to boot, but I had problems with drivers and with display. Then installing WINE and trying to run the Evernote app just seemed time-consuming.
    Right now it’s running Ubuntu Netbook Remix (UNR). I’m happy to say it runs quite speedily. It plays YouTube videos when I’m cooking in the kitchen, and I can bring up Evernote Web to see the recipe I’m cooking at the moment.
    I do understand the complaints agains the cloud storage of Chrome OS. If they’re not already considering it, I would certainly be allowing Gears into the mix, so recent work would be available if I went offline, and I would be able to ‘update the Web’ next time I got on. I wouldn’t be dealing so much with hard drive limitations, and it would be even zippier than UNR.
    My main concern is their stated hard drive limitations. Will the OS actually not even RUN if I have a hard drive instead of a solid-state drive? That’s going to immediately alienate users like me who want to try it on an older machine that’s not solid-state.

  4. I'm actually kind of thrilled at this idea. I purchased a EEE PC a few years back when they were still young and horrible. It came with a crappy, 'special' Linux OS that catered to people who wanted to learn Chinese.

    I had a spare copy of XP nearby, so I put that on it. Then came the problems. The hard drive was ridiculously small and could barely fit the OS. It took forever to boot, and mostly I used it for the web and for Evernote For Windows.

    Then I tried Ubuntu. It took less time to boot, but I had problems with drivers and with display. Then installing WINE and trying to run the Evernote app just seemed time-consuming.

    Right now it's running Ubuntu Netbook Remix (UNR). I'm happy to say it runs quite speedily. It plays YouTube videos when I'm cooking in the kitchen, and I can bring up Evernote Web to see the recipe I'm cooking at the moment.

    I do understand the complaints agains the cloud storage of Chrome OS. If they're not already considering it, I would certainly be allowing Gears into the mix, so recent work would be available if I went offline, and I would be able to 'update the Web' next time I got on. I wouldn't be dealing so much with hard drive limitations, and it would be even zippier than UNR.

    My main concern is their stated hard drive limitations. Will the OS actually not even RUN if I have a hard drive instead of a solid-state drive? That's going to immediately alienate users like me who want to try it on an older machine that's not solid-state.

  5. At the end of the day think about users – that includes people other than YOU. Most USERS only need what Chrome is offering – this is brilliant – seriously great stuff.

    As someone who is a tenchofile – I write webapps – I hate web apps, social networking and the web – my wife who is a technophobe loves em and uses them endlessly. These things make normal peoples day to day lives better.

    The only point I would make is that web apps can still delineate processing server or client side – RAM is the issue here people.

  6. At the end of the day think about users – that includes people other than YOU. Most USERS only need what Chrome is offering – this is brilliant – seriously great stuff.

    As someone who is a tenchofile – I write webapps – I hate web apps, social networking and the web – my wife who is a technophobe loves em and uses them endlessly. These things make normal peoples day to day lives better.

    The only point I would make is that web apps can still delineate processing server or client side – RAM is the issue here people.