Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
Intel Core i5-based MacBook Pros coming soon?
Netflix to roll out 1080p streaming later this year
China closes major hacker ring, arrests three members
Sharp and Samsung end LCD patent suits with cross-licensing agreement
TS Community
| User Gallery | Recent Discussion |
 3 Screens of Techspot- WakeMO by WakeMO |  New Elite Gaming/Media Center PC by JimShady23 |
 Best of 2008 com port by nicholas_t |  OUTER LIMITS by earthlostangel |
TechSpot RSSSoftware
Google to challenge Microsoft with new OS
Google has announced on their blog yesterday that they intend on introducing a PC operating system which follows Chrome’s ideology. Much akin to Google’s browser, their OS is planned to be quick, lightweight, and secure and will even follow the “Chrome” nomenclature. Being an extension of their browser, the search-giant envisions Chrome OS to be very Web-centric, with a minimalistic user interface.
Given its premise, Google plans to aim their featherweight OS at netbooks – at least, initially. They claim to be working with several OEMs to bring Chrome OS-bearing netbooks to market as early as the second half of 2010. The project is fully open source, and its code will be released in the coming months. Chrome OS will run on x86 and ARM chips.
Naturally, this poses a threat to Microsoft as both companies are already strong competitors in various arenas; search, webmail, browsers, mobile operating systems and so on. Redmond, too, has intentions on making its latest OS, Windows 7, available on netbooks – and I’m sure you recall Windows XP showing Linux to the door.
Google has a fantastic opportunity to “fix” something that is often cited as the pitfall of mainstream Linux distros; they can make Chrome OS easy to use. I’m not sitting cross-legged on a mountain - and I’m not computer stupid - but every time I dabble with Linux, I’m put off by the learning curve. Here’s to wishing Google the best of luck.
Given its premise, Google plans to aim their featherweight OS at netbooks – at least, initially. They claim to be working with several OEMs to bring Chrome OS-bearing netbooks to market as early as the second half of 2010. The project is fully open source, and its code will be released in the coming months. Chrome OS will run on x86 and ARM chips.
Naturally, this poses a threat to Microsoft as both companies are already strong competitors in various arenas; search, webmail, browsers, mobile operating systems and so on. Redmond, too, has intentions on making its latest OS, Windows 7, available on netbooks – and I’m sure you recall Windows XP showing Linux to the door.
Google has a fantastic opportunity to “fix” something that is often cited as the pitfall of mainstream Linux distros; they can make Chrome OS easy to use. I’m not sitting cross-legged on a mountain - and I’m not computer stupid - but every time I dabble with Linux, I’m put off by the learning curve. Here’s to wishing Google the best of luck.
Related Stories
User Comments (27)
Post a comment| yukka on July 8, 2009 9:09 AM | a bit of competition might make MS loosen the restrictions on the netbook versions of windows 7. on the other hand, a simplified net-centric OS linked to the cloud applications run by google wont keep me in a support job for long.. |
| TJGeezer on July 8, 2009 10:16 AM | I agree - I've tried Linux 5 or 6 times over the years, even working in it once for 6 months, but always went regretfully back to Windows. Even on this pig of a Vista 64 os I'm stuck with on my current machine, it simply runs some essential tools better and with less hassle. (The Win7 RC wouldn't install, a problem I found that others also had.) But if I could find a clean and fast non-pig os for this machine... oh hell, yes. I'd give it a try. |
| TomSEA on July 8, 2009 10:50 AM | This is gonna be interesting. I'll be anxiously watching the development from the peanut gallery. |
| superTramp92 on July 8, 2009 10:55 AM | hopefully it'll have good portability and support for the things that keep dragging me back to windows: video games (mostly) and the fact that windows can support just about any app out there. If Chrome os can take care of that, then i'll completely convert. In Chrome OS we Trust. |
| Guest on July 8, 2009 11:33 AM | How does one compete against a "free" product? As much as I like and enjoy using its products though I have been using Bing (faster) and Ask (more relevant) a lot more lately, Google is using its monopolistic position in advertising, search and general Web services to put Microsoft out of business. And that is illegal. Having a presence on the Apple board and working with Microsoft's customers (PC makers) against Microsoft, is conspiracy in the real sense and should bring a RICO allegation against Google and its collaborators. What Google is doing sounds a lot like what Intel gets in trouble for a lot. Where is the outrage against Google? Everyone loves Google. Everyone loves Warren Buffet. If Buffett started building cars, better cars maybe, maybe not and giving them away with the hope and goal of dominating the market for his insurance businesses, would that be fair competition to Ford? People refer to the "Microsoft tax”, give me a break. When Google realizes its goal of dominating the Web experience, everyone, even those who never use a computer or the Internet, will pay a “Google tax” passed on to consumers by advertisers of all manner of goods and services because they will have pay the Troll whatever it demands to play in it’s G-Space. All that said, I'll give it a try. Microsoft, listen up. |
| yukka on July 8, 2009 1:08 PM | There are millions of PCs out there. Offer retail copies of an OS for 49.99 (dollars or pounds depending on what side of the atlantic) and it will sell. Try to sell it for hundreds like they will with the retail copies once the pre orders are done with and thats where people will switch to a Google OS. People dont expect a free microsoft operating system (and i wouldnt want to run one stuffed with adverts to compensate) but with so many PCs out there, dropping the price to something like the pre order prices permanently must be a winner. For every retail copy that sells for 150 pounds and gets 1 person using Windows, you could sell to 3 people and get them using it, and they wouldnt feel ripped off since they just paid a little more than the price of a console game for their operating system. |
| Relic on July 8, 2009 1:43 PM | Sounds interesting, it'll be cool to see what happens with this. Especially since netbooks are primarily web driven as you said and Google does that very well. But personally I'd rather have something not Microsoft/Google related for various reasons =/ while I enjoy Linux I do agree it just isn't as obvious and easy as Windows. |
| tbolt on July 8, 2009 3:15 PM | I'm just glad an outfit with some reasonable clout and
backing resource is stepping up to give MS some competition
(or at the least get their attention). Wether anyone from
MS wants to admit it or not, they do have the market
cornered, they do have a "monopoly". Hell, even some
diehard Linux users will admit they (from time to time) have
to use MS OSes just to get things done. Thanks Google for throwing your hat into the ring and good luck. Market competition is the best thing for all of us. |
| Vrmithrax on July 8, 2009 3:31 PM | Wow, I have a hard time seeing anyone try to defend MS from
Google... I mean, wasn't MS the one involved in tons of
anti-trust suits for their forced preferential treatment of
IE over other browsers? And how can you fault Google in
comparison, when the mighty Gates himself bragged that his
goal was to have his operating system on every PC in the
world? Doesn't MS have a history of creating new
craptacular operating systems and shoving them down consumer
throats just to create a revenue stream to help fund the
hungry juggernaut they have become? And Google having a
share in Apple... Gee, that just means they aren't bowing
to the mighty MS and actually are supporting some diversity
in the market, which MS would love to squash. Hell, if anything, Google has learned from the master about attempting world domination, and is applying what they have learned. Me, I'm looking forward to what sounds like a simplified and optimized OS, which is everything Windows is not. Should be interesting. |
| Guest on July 8, 2009 3:51 PM | Whoa, I heard that they denied rumors of making an OS a few years ago when Chrome came out. Did the success of their browser make them just decide to make an OS distro, or was this already in the works? |
| Guest on July 8, 2009 4:32 PM | At this point and time, I consider Microsoft to be the underdog and google to be the massive power hungry corporation. It seems every week, I am becoming more and more anti-google. It'd be sad if that makes me become pro-microsoft. |
| gobbybobby on July 8, 2009 5:22 PM | This is a big story, I can't see it taking off. If google
was to release an OS I doubt it will gain more than 1%
market share, People will play around with, discover only
google earth and other google soft work and change back to
MS. I as a PC gamer Doubt any PC game, Or Design software
would work on this OS. I also Doubt many Software developers
will support Google Chrome OS as a platform. I think it will be great for people who just browse the web, they said they wanted to keep it simple to use, this to me shows they are going to aim it people who only browse the web and do simple tasks like social networking and watching the odd online video. I would not like to say I am Pro Microsoft but I don't think MS have to worry at all about this. We are ready have linux and ubuntu as choices for free OS. Now we are getting another free OS. I will download the OS and give it a try as soon as I can get my hands on it. but I repeat what I have said, I want compatibility, if my software does not work, I am not interested. Note: I have not check for spelling. |
| Vrmithrax on July 8, 2009 5:53 PM | Like gobbybobby, the gaming issue is one of my worries.
However, there are 2 possible scenarios where Google could
come out strong on this front. The first is the massive
growing wave of flash and java games out there, which
something like a Chrome OS should be able to handle easily
(and much more efficiently than a bloated internet browser
on top of a bloated OS). But seriously, Google could make a huge leap into a stable, solid, low-profile game-friendly OS. Think the Xbox or PS3 OS, on a PC. Lots of us have been pointing out how effective a gaming platform based on Linux could be, with its optimized and minimalistic driver architecture... But there's never been enough push behind the Linux crowd to get something moving. Imagine if Google put their clout behind something like that... Hmmmmmmmm. |
| gobbybobby on July 8, 2009 6:14 PM | Vrmithrax, I agree If google could create a gaming freindly
OS that would be great. With windows, crashing is a big
issues. Games crash... ALOT. Fallout 3 as prime example. I
downloaded it to windows 7, It crashed every 5 mins. So I
copyed it to vista, Got alot further in the game, but every
now and then it will still crash, Is that the game, or the
OS. Unrea Tornament 3. The game will crash if minimized on
windows Vista, but its fine tabbing in and out on Win 7 and
XP. hmm. Thats Vista. EVE Online. Games that work with no
issues. EVE online, Works fine.. never crashed. I use steam. I get my games from Steam, I add games not on steam to steam so I can still access the community whilst playing. Steam has a great simple to use interface whilst still having a professional look. I don't want to have an OS that looks like a calculator with the huge buttons aimed at 5 year olds. While they say they are going for the easy approach, will it truly be easy. You are gonna get the same errors as windows. What will google have when it goes wrong. Will there be a Blue Screen with lines of code that people can't understand. I think it will. (well maybe not Blue) PC gaming is a can be a pain in the a** when things go wrong, and don't work or freeze. I think that MS should work with PC game developers. Fallout 3 is a games for windows game. Why does it not work on windows then??? |
| tengeta on July 8, 2009 6:43 PM | Games are what makes Windows unstable... Vista and 7 have
never crashed on me outside of a few select crappily coded
games. The one thing guaranteed to have more errors in
coding than Windows are the games you play on it. They rush
it out the door, so you have to deal with it until its
patched. As for this OS, I'm not too sure. I'm rather happy with the Linux I use right now. Unless this is an OSX style project where its basically built upon it and looks and works entirely different, then I may gain some interest. |
| gobbybobby on July 8, 2009 6:49 PM | tengeta not 1 game crash? what games do play? I find Vista to be much more unstable game wise than XP. 7 Is an improvement but I was shocked that Fallout 3 did not work. I immediantly saw other steam users reporting the same problem on a game thats been out for a while and has been patched, ''some people have isssues'' ''some people do not'' is what one person said on the thread I Viewed. You may be one of the lucky ones that have no issues. U play fallout 3? |
| supersmashbrada on July 8, 2009 11:29 PM | I love stories like this, bottom line guys, they compete we get better products and cheaper prices...come on, who can argue with that. |
| tbolt on July 8, 2009 11:41 PM | gobby, I bet it is some obscure driver issue that Vista/7
has yet to resolve. A few weeks ago I was constantly and
consistently crashing within 5 minutes of any game I played
(Crysis/Warhead, Gears of War, BF2/2142, CoD4/5, UT3,
several titles through Steam), even crashed within 5 minutes
of OCCT and 3D Mark. I thought my video cards were crappin
out. Then out of the blue, I started to play Warhead
through my external speakers (usually I play with a Logitech
USB headset)...not one crash. Played other games...not one
crash. Switched back to the headset...crash city. There
are no drivers for the headset provided by Logitech, it just
uses the OSes USB drivers. No other USB device causes
crashes, just the headset. Never did that with Xp. Go
figure. But anyway (back on topic) Google having a gaming friendly OS that works with current and future titles would certainly open a potentially lucrative door. I'd agree with you in that an OS by Google would likely get a small share of the market UNLESS their OS was compatible with what Windows runs...gonna be a pretty tough task for them to pull off. |
| Mycologist on July 9, 2009 4:33 AM | Damn, this sounds pretty sweet, especially for $49.99! Over here in the UK hopefully that'll be even cheaper! *crosses fingers* |
| gobbybobby on July 9, 2009 5:26 AM | Well I use Headphones, but not USB onses so I doubt my
problem is there.. U got COD4/5 on steam.. there should be a
Y is it still so expensive on there thread.... Yea Mycologist sounds cheap. Thats only if u pre order and the price wil go up after release. Clever really. If people pre order an upgrade then other peole are likely to buy the OS at full proce after its released. ''I bet it is some obscure driver issue'' Yer I think it is.. When I got the PC, I used wireless, but then I wanted to bridge my xbox over so I did not have to buy wireless thing. It would Blue screen as soon as I plugged it in! Turned out to be the LAN ports driver. I will try re-installing all the drivers and making sure they are updated. I have got lazy since I got Vista, it did most of the work for me! |
| Zeromus on July 9, 2009 6:52 PM | I wonder if they'll start writing a kernel from the ground up. If I was them I'd just mask it all using linux, but if it's chrome that they're aiming for, this might be the desktop version of the netbook OS Moblin that they're going for. |
| Guest on July 9, 2009 8:52 PM | Will Google get slapped a class action suit if they don't include other browsers like Firefox or IE? If Microsoft is going to get slapped, let's not be biased. |
| bjlauritz on July 10, 2009 1:06 AM | I really can't believe what i'm hearing! are you old enough
to remember the days when there were 2 web browsers - ie and
netscape? some web functions worked better with ie, others
with netscape. so what did MS do? they bought out netscape,
folded all the good the good stuff into ie and then shelved
it. they did the same with just about everything else that
worked sans-microsoft and folded them all into windows.
That's how they got to where they are today. And you think we should give a tinkers-damn about what's fare in Redmond? take a hike |
| Vrmithrax on July 10, 2009 7:29 AM | bjlauritz said: Wow, even a typically anti-Microsoft guy like me
has to rectify the phenomenally incorrect history lesson
there... Microsoft at no time ever owned Netscape.
Netscape slowly lost ground to IE because they did not have
the massive resources that MS did, even though the Netscape
crew were the ones that developed the still-used SSL
protocols. They pushed for an investigation of unfair
business practices on MS, which resulted in an anti-trust
lawsuit over preferential browser treatment, but even that
couldn't save them.I really can't believe what i'm hearing! are you old enough to remember the days when there were 2 web browsers - ie and netscape? some web functions worked better with ie, others with netscape. so what did MS do? they bought out netscape, folded all the good the good stuff into ie and then shelved it. they did the same with just about everything else that worked sans-microsoft and folded them all into windows. That's how they got to where they are today. And you think we should give a tinkers-damn about what's fare in Redmond? take a hike Netscape began an open source project called Mozilla, around the time they were bought out by AOL, who really did nothing to push advances in the Netscape platform. Netscape's browser died of attrition and stagnation, not because MS shelved it. If MS had truly been involved as you initially indicated, I wouldn't be typing this in Firefox right now. |
| Mugsy on July 10, 2009 7:41 AM | When Apple moved to the Intel platform for its Macs, I
thought for SURE they'd finally release a version of the
MacOS... an already tested and established OS with huge
support base... that would run on any Intel based
PC. I have no clue why they never did. Software is MUCH cheaper to develop & sell than hardware with a MUCH higher profit margin. Various flavors of Linux have been around for years, and I keep a partition with Ubuntu on it for those rare times disaster strikes my Windows setup. But as good as Ubuntu is, it just doesn't match the ease of use of Windows (still using XP with no intention of moving anytime soon.) |
