Taking the 'PC' out of the Chrome OS equation
Summary: Just when I thought I couldn't stomach even one more post about Google's Chrome OS, I stumbled onto Michael Miller's "Google's Chrome OS: Maybe Not a "PC" OS After All" piece from July 9. Reading it, I had one of those "aha!" moments.
Just when I thought I couldn't stomach even one more post about Google's Chrome OS, I stumbled onto Michael Miller's "Google's Chrome OS: Maybe Not a "PC" OS After All" piece from July 9.
Reading it, I had one of those "aha!" moments. Miller suggests that those of us who are comparing Chrome OS to Windows (or even to Linux) are comparing tangerines to kumquats. Windows is a PC operating system. Chrome OS -- based on the little we know about it -- is not.
It's not just a semantic distinction. A PC operating system assumes users can and will install third-party applications and connect up various peripherals. Chrome OS may not support either of these things, based on early indicators.
Miller explains:
"... I started thinking: What if the (Chrome) OS really is completely web-focused? If so, a user wouldn't need--or be able--to download or install any application, or indeed any file. Instead, you'd just use the browser and run a web application, whether Google Apps, or Picasa Web, or Photoshop.com."
A netbook running such an operating system would be all about Web surfing and not about running local apps, as Miller points out: "No Microsoft Office, of course; but also no Open Office, iTunes, or even a local mail client, although a webmail client could be cached by Google Gears."
Miller notes that such a system isn't what today's netbook users seem to want. Remember all the outcry over Microsoft limiting netbook users with Windows 7 to three concurrent apps -- which resulted in the company recently reversing its position?
Miller blogged:
"The first netbooks mostly ran Linux, which again can boot faster, has fewer problems with malware, and is less expensive than Windows. But the vast majority of users wanted Windows XP, because they wanted the interface they were familiar with, application compatibility, and support for all their devices."
Perhaps netbook makers will create yet another subclass -- along the lines of Mobile Internet Devices or "Mobile browsers" as Miller suggests.
And maybe Microsoft's retort here will be something other than Windows (or its Gazelle browser/OS research project)... Maybe it will be a combination of an embedded version of Windows, with a customized/Alchemized interface running on a new kind of CMD (Connected Media Device)... (Where are you, Microsoft magician J Allard?)
Just some more food for thought... in the absence of any real details (so far) from Google.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
MJ, have you read this?
Dual-boot configuration
e.g.
- Netbooks (x86): ChromeOS + optional Windows/Ubuntu
- Smartbooks (ARM): ChromeOS + optional Ubuntu
The ChromeOS-only machines would provide users a "light" OS environment which boots & runs fast, has a super long battery life & requires little or no maintenance. For a large number of users, this will be all they ever need.
The ChromeOS + Windows/Ubuntu machines provide users the option to boot into a full desktop OS, if/when it is needed.
Are regular users willing to dual boot?
Actually, I think dual booting may kill batteries more than it saves. Switching OSes take a lot of disk activity, and I've noticed that my netbook's batteries drain far faster with a lot of disk activity than without.
I don't see a real advantage here, honestly: It's not as if regular OSes have any glaring disadvantages. You cite battery life and boot/run speeds, but I'm not convinced for the following reasons:
-Boot time is often not a problem if you have a habit of sleeping/hibernating your computer.
-If all you're doing is browsing and don't have other applications open, you're still gonna get battery savings in most OSes.
-Using WiFi takes power. If you're using offline applications and have the WiFi card turned off, you may actually get better battery life than if you're surfing the Internet all the time!
-I don't think there's gonna be any difference in run speeds. Browsers just don't use enough processing power to be affected by OS conditions.
Web app migration will reduce the need to dual-boot
As users migrate more & more of what they do to the cloud, there will be less & less need to boot into the full-desktop OS. Having the full-desktop OS there allows for a weening off period, until it is no longer needed at all.
One of the major benefits of moving entirely to a "thin" OS like ChromeOS is that it will be easy to use, with little or no maintenance to do. This will be a major plus with novice computer users.
Shouldn't throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Nah, there never was a need to dual boot in the first place. The "full-desktop OS" will continue to improve in performance. There's no need to throw away everything we've learned and created.
I foresee an eventual convergence of the two concepts to combine advantages of both approaches. Getting rid of the advantages of the desktop (speed, offline access) will not fix anything. You shouldn't have to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Full Desktop vs the Cloud
1. Both Chris Dawson and Sam Diaz (I believe) recently blogged about their teenage children, to whom the computer IS the cloud. They spend all their time in the browser and are OS agnostic. (My teenage son on the other hand uses both the cloud and the full desktop with many applications to suit is needs.) The point here is that the world we see is not necessarily the same world as the younger generation sees.
2. I think we are experiencing the beginning of a partial paradigm shift here. Many users never use the power of the general purpose computer beyond light productivity applications and the web. They are not knowledgeable when it comes to computer maintenance and security, and could transition to the cloud easily. This would benefit both them and the web, because malware on their computers would be a thing of the past. The computer then becomes an appliance.
3. Then there are the balance of the users, from individuals who need a few applications or utilities which may never be in the cloud to power users of various types. These people will NEVER give up the desktop. Many of these users do not represent a problem to the web because they know how to protect and look after their systems.
4. There is in my view clearly a market for the appliance type computer given reasonable adequacy of the cloud. There will of course be an ongoing market for the full desktop. After a period of learning and experimentation, some users will be well served by the cloud only. Some users will prefer the full desktop virtually all the time and some users will switch back and forth (dual boot if you will).
5. The role and the future of MS in this new world is an interesting issue to ponder. In my mind there is not doubt that MS grip on the PC will be loosened somewhat, maybe a lot. Once in the cloud permanently, the OS does not matter much any longer.
6. The battery life and portability issues will in the end only have a marginal effect on the above scenario. If you need the full desktop all the time, you will be happy to sacrifice some portability and/or battery life.
In Future Windows premium/pro will not be the sole OS
No need
RE: Taking the 'PC' out of the Chrome OS equation
the idea of Windows 7 limiting the amount of apps I could
run on a netbook. But, why would I care, if I would use
just a browser like Google Chrome? Until we see universal
Internet access, I don't see myself using a netbook just
for the Internet. I would also need at least a few
offline apps, and Gears doesn't cut it.
Google Chrome OS may be a little ahead of its time.
Maybe we should change our point of view a little bit...
Of course still remains the case of "other stuff" like games and video editing etc, but on a netbook? I think a browser will be enough.
Do you think the "familiarity" of the interface metters a lot? We are talking about skins and themes, c'mon...
Yes. familiarity matters.
Yes. Absolutely. Ask anybody who studies UI design. One of the first things people hate about new UI designs is that they are so different and they have to spend time learning it.
"Maybe not tomorrow, but in a few years, yes."
I disagree. I don't think that the ultimate goal should be to be 100% online. We have plenty of local processing power, why waste it? I think it makes more sense to push towards a hybrid solution that takes advantage of the strengths of both online and offline applications.
Ok, ok, it matters
If you give the people the familiar design, they don't even have to know, where they are - on the desktop, or on the web. You give them a familar icon that starts a browser with, let's say, "WebWord", thats all, they don't even know what a browser is...
UI design vs skinning
Well, yes, actually - "Leo" by Stardock, a company that specializes in skinning software for Windows :).
http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/wb-jan08a.jpg
Although it should be noted that simple reskinning will not turn Windows into MacOS:
-The Start menu is still there in the Leo skin.
-The behavior of the application menus is still the same: They're attached to the application in the Leo skin, whereas on MacOS they're always at the top of the screen.
-If you insert a disk in MacOS, an icon appears on the desktop. With Windows, it's inside "My Computer" on the desktop. The Leo skin doesn't change that behavior.
So - making something "like Windows" is not as simple as just throwing on a new skin. Windows with a new skin is still Windows. It doesn't immediately start acting like a Mac simply because you use Mac-like graphics.
It's the same thing with Linux or any other OS: Throwing on a Windows-like skin won't magically change Linux into Windows. It still has a different file system underneath. It still uses "mounting" for drives. It still doesn't have the lettered identification Windows uses. It still places things like documents and music in different locations than Windows does. It has no equivalent of "Program Files."
The locations of various items, what's placed on the desktop, what's placed in a launcher type bar, what's placed in a Start Menu, how the icons are arranged, how deep you have to dig for various settings and controls - they're all different in different OSes. The differences are not just a simple matter of reskinning.
So no, they're not the same. They're not even close. And they're not simply reskinned versions of each other. They're fundamentally different.
What 3-app limit?
http://hothardware.com/News/Windows-7-Starter-to-Remove-3-App-Limit/
RE: Taking the 'PC' out of the Chrome OS equation
My prediction
all of the desktop metaphors will show on the canvas of the browser and via 'neatx' thin client all activities will occur over a secure ssh tunnel with optimized NX compression.
So, in many respects you are correct that the user won't have any data stored on the client netbook; perhaps only some metadata but security-wise it will be a diskless netbook thin-cliented to the data center or, if you will, the Google Cloud.
Check out 'neatx' at Google Code and see that it is not a coincidence that Google chose to modify NoMachine's NX Thin Client technology.
..a kiosk distro.
Sure it has been done, albeit on a small scale.
It was novel because it used Linux and Nomachine's NX and was essentially thin client to the data center. No security issues--no worry about loosing your Laptop with 'sensitive' data on it.
Only now, Google is ramping up the same for Linux thin client to the Cloud 'on a grand scale'.
It shouldn't matter to consumers who already use Google Apps or Google Gmail, you've got nearly 8 GB of personal data on the net anyhow.
If you want to peer into the future, install a copy of 'neatx' on your server and run the client.
NX Thin Client is the best.
So, pay close attention, because Google are assembling 'the moving parts' below the radar, and 'neatx' is a crucial component to make Diskless Netbooks work, especially over marginal high-latency networks like 3G, EDGE, GSM, or even dial-up 56K.
Yes, even over 56K NX works at near-local speed.
If you don't believe me, try it, it's free at:
http://www.nomachine.com
I've been using NX for years and I knoweth of what I speaketh.
WARNING: Google knows everything about you!
That's just Google's new service
To add to their original search features, Google now searches other places besides the web. They now search your car, your room, your closet, and your shorts. Google search to the max! :p