It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Google Chrome OS(46 posts)(46 posts)
(46 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Arkose: I can't see how this OS will possibly succeed. Since the OS is centred around web applications running in a browser, all of which will work in any standards-compliant browser on any platform, why would anyone bother using Google's OS rather than a more established one with far superior hardware and software support?

Yeah I agree, I have no idea why this is such a big deal.
The only thing I can think of that might make it relevant is that they keep the Linux kernel, maybe even be bold enough to chuck GNU, and build their own toolkit and apps on top of it.
If the goal is to remove the headaches of maintenance from a user's computer, then your typical Linux distro is a colossal mistake.
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Arkose: I can't see how this OS will possibly succeed. Since the OS is centred around web applications running in a browser, all of which will work in any standards-compliant browser on any platform, why would anyone bother using Google's OS rather than a more established one with far superior hardware and software support? I can't even see it succeeding on netbooks all that well; the outstanding Windows 7 will displace the ageing XP on netbooks as soon as OEMs get their hands on it, ensuring Windows' netbook market dominance, and those specifically wanting Linux on the go would surely be better off with a more established distro such as Ubuntu. It's also not related to Google's other OS, Android, which could lead to some confusion.
avatar
Khalan: Wonder what compatibility will be like with DirectX and existing Windows apps and formats.

Google Chrome OS is just another Linux distro. Windows compatibility will be non-existent. Unless they bundle Wine with it only native Linux software will work.
EDIT: Also, "Google Chrome OS" has to be one of the worst and most confusing names for an OS.

Google already has deals in place with major netbook manufacturers like HP and Acer. Chrome is more appealing to them because, unlike Windows XP or Win 7, it has very, very low system requirements, which is essential for a netbook OS. Frankly, there is almost no way Win 7 can run effectively on a netbook, so Chrome or some other Linux based system makes much more sense. Outside of the netbook market, I agree, I don't see how this is any different than every other Linux distro out there, other than the Google brand slapped on it, so I don't see how this could be at all successful (in that market).
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
cogadh: Google already has deals in place with major netbook manufacturers like HP and Acer. Chrome is more appealing to them because, unlike Windows XP or Win 7, it has very, very low system requirements, which is essential for a netbook OS.

System requirements? Bugger that, its the very low PRICE that they're most likely to be pushing
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Romulus: I'd like to think GOG will support it, as I guess a lot of their games end up being played on low-powered machines.
avatar
Tirpitz: Currently we don't have any plans concerning supporting Linux. As I always say when answering e-mails that ask about this: in GOG.com we don't like the word "never" (like in: "DRM-free old games? It'll NEVER work." ;)
Right now we're still in beta and many thing can happen before we're out of beta. Supporting open source operating system can troublesome from the technical and legal point of view but just imagine a publisher that is asked not only to allow DRM-free distribution but also a target of non-Windows operating system. That's why we can't promise anything. If it can be done we'll probably try to find a way but don;t press us too much, ok? :)

Legal? How? If there's legal problems adding support for another OS then there must be problems adding it for Windows. There's no difference at all.
Posted July 09, 2009
At the beginning of the 21st century, the Google had become the largest commercial entity in the United States. Nine out of every ten homes contain its products. Its political and financial influence is felt everywhere. In public, it is the world's leading supplier of computer technology, medical products, and healthcare. Unknown, even to its own employees, its massive profits are generated by military technology, genetic experimentation and viral weaponry/
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Tirpitz: Currently we don't have any plans concerning supporting Linux. As I always say when answering e-mails that ask about this: in GOG.com we don't like the word "never" (like in: "DRM-free old games? It'll NEVER work." ;)
Right now we're still in beta and many thing can happen before we're out of beta. Supporting open source operating system can troublesome from the technical and legal point of view but just imagine a publisher that is asked not only to allow DRM-free distribution but also a target of non-Windows operating system. That's why we can't promise anything. If it can be done we'll probably try to find a way but don;t press us too much, ok? :)
avatar
TheJoe: Legal? How? If there's legal problems adding support for another OS then there must be problems adding it for Windows. There's no difference at all.

I assumed that meant the whole decompiling the software thing so it can be re-coded to run in the wildlands where direct x is merely a legend
Post edited July 09, 2009 by Aliasalpha
Posted July 09, 2009
At the beginning of the 21st century, the Google had become the largest commercial entity in the United States. Nine out of every ten homes contain its products. Its political and financial influence is felt everywhere. In public, it is the world's leading supplier of computer technology, medical products, and healthcare. Unknown, even to its own employees, its massive profits are generated by military technology, genetic experimentation and viral weaponry/
#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:20#Q&_^Q&Q#

Be afraid, be very afraid......
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
TheJoe: Legal? How? If there's legal problems adding support for another OS then there must be problems adding it for Windows. There's no difference at all.
avatar
Aliasalpha: I assumed that meant the whole decompiling the software thing so it can be re-coded to run in the wildlands where direct x is merely a legend

Hardly any of these games even need Direct X, most are OpenGL or so ancient there's no rendering at all.
Posted July 09, 2009
Even if the games use OpenGL for the graphics, they still very likely use DirectX for audio or something else. Remember, DirectX is not just a graphics API, but rather a full suite of APIs covering graphics, audio, input/output and networking.
Besides, I disagree completely with your assessment of how many games actually use OpenGL as opposed to DirectX. Sure, the really old games don't use DX at all, but then again, they use DOSBox or ScummVM, which have Linux native versions already, but you would be hard pressed to find any games from the DX era that don't use DX in some way. Of the first 10 DX era games listed in GOG's library, all of them are DirectX 7 or higher games.
Posted July 09, 2009
How is this different from other Linux-style OS?
Well I suppose they do have a better marketing ability.
I just like my games n stuff too much to ditch windows.
Can't someone create a real challenger?
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Tirpitz: That's why we can't promise anything. If it can be done we'll probably try to find a way but don;t press us too much, ok? :)

No pressure, just wonder'n :D
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
cogadh: Google already has deals in place with major netbook manufacturers like HP and Acer. Chrome is more appealing to them because, unlike Windows XP or Win 7, it has very, very low system requirements, which is essential for a netbook OS. Frankly, there is almost no way Win 7 can run effectively on a netbook, so Chrome or some other Linux based system makes much more sense.

Windows 7 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mFHQpFoFIA]really well on a wide variety of netbooks, even with only 1 GB of RAM and the deliberately-low-power Atom CPU--all these videos show Ultimate (the beta/RC is Ultimate only); Microsoft recommends the lighter Starter version for netbooks, which is supposed to perform even better on such hardware. Regardless, any computer--netbook or not--that can't run the latest version of Windows properly shouldn't be on the market--especially considering that Windows 7 is more responsive than Vista (even after SP1). There's just no excuse for it.
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
cogadh: Google already has deals in place with major netbook manufacturers like HP and Acer. Chrome is more appealing to them because, unlike Windows XP or Win 7, it has very, very low system requirements, which is essential for a netbook OS. Frankly, there is almost no way Win 7 can run effectively on a netbook, so Chrome or some other Linux based system makes much more sense.
avatar
Arkose: Windows 7 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mFHQpFoFIA]really well on a wide variety of netbooks, even with only 1 GB of RAM and the deliberately-low-power Atom CPU--all these videos show Ultimate (the beta/RC is Ultimate only); Microsoft recommends the lighter Starter version for netbooks, which is supposed to perform even better on such hardware. Regardless, any computer--netbook or not--that can't run the latest version of Windows properly shouldn't be on the market--especially considering that Windows 7 is more responsive than Vista (even after SP1). There's just no excuse for it.

Have to agree with Arkose, Cogadh. I did a fresh installation of XP on my Netbook, but after only a day I got given Windows 7 beta on a disc. I even formatted the drive and I swear it was running faster than the XP install. Here is a totally unscientific picture proving the fact.
Attachments:
netbook.jpg (106 Kb)
Posted July 09, 2009
avatar
Arkose: Windows 7 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mFHQpFoFIA]really on a wide variety of netbooks, even with only 1 GB of RAM and the deliberately-low-power Atom CPU--all these videos show Ultimate (the beta/RC is Ultimate only); Microsoft recommends the lighter Starter version for netbooks, which is supposed to perform even better on such hardware. Regardless, any computer--netbook or not--that can't run the latest version of Windows properly shouldn't be on the market--especially considering that Windows 7 is more responsive than Vista (even after SP1). There's just no excuse for it. <a href="http://www.gog.com/forum/general_archive/google_chrome_os/post27" class="link_arrow"></a> </div><div class="small_avatar_2_h"><img src="/upload/avatars/2008/12/b8b753e0ae58a37498e65e160ced8ca45f398b08_t2.jpg " width="16" height="16" alt="avatar" /></div><span class="quot_text"><span class="quot_user_name">Romulus: </span></span>Have to agree with Arkose, Cogadh. I did a fresh installation of XP on my Netbook, but after only a day I got given Windows 7 beta on a disc. I even formatted the drive and I swear it was running faster than the XP install. Here is a [url=http://www.gog.com/upload/temp/b9671fe8791749c0cb8297dc86d6f015154c2663.JPG]totally unscientific picture proving the fact.

The point is they can put Google Chrome on a netbook with far lower system specs, which makes the netbook far cheaper. They don't even need a GB of RAM on a netbook running Chrome, as a Linux based system, it can technically run on an old 486 with only 16 MB of RAM. This is what makes Chrome appealing to system manufacturers, who are looking at getting netbooks into previously closed markets at prices lower than $200 per unit. They can't possibly do that with Win 7. The hardware requirements alone make that impossible, let alone the cost of the OS.
Posted July 09, 2009
Yeah I suppose thats a fair point, they could manage to make a vastly cheaper product with this OS in mind but would creating a completely new line be justified financially? Specs wise it could bridge the gap between netbook & PDA but is there really a market for that when netbooks are already pretty cheap given what they give? The linux version of the EeePC 701 os within the price range of practically everyone I've ever known
avatar
Romulus: I did a fresh installation of XP on my Netbook, but after only a day I got given Windows 7 beta on a disc. I even formatted the drive and I swear it was running faster than the XP install. Here is a totally unscientific picture proving the fact.

My god, what compelling evidence!
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Google Chrome OS(46 posts)(46 posts)
(46 posts)