# Google to introduce a PC operating system



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Source: New York Times 7/8/09 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?_r=1&hp



> In a direct challenge to Microsoft, Google is expected to announce on Wednesday that it is developing an operating system for a personal computer based on its Chrome browser, according to two people briefed on Google's plans.
> 
> The details of the technology could not be learned, but Google plans to make the announcement on a company blog on Wednesday afternoon, this person said.
> 
> ...


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Not surprising, competition is good.


----------



## cmtar (Nov 16, 2005)

very interesting, looking forward to seeing it


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

cmtar said:


> very interesting, looking forward to seeing it


+1


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

The real question is: How many PC manufacturers will want to get in bed with Google and risk alienating Microsoft?

Also, wouldn't Google have to provide alternate browsers and support IE, Firefox, etc., just as Microsoft had to support alternatives to IE?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Big question is, what software will run on it..


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

houskamp said:


> Big question is, what software will run on it..


 . . . and how private will your data be?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

For a company like Google, it wouldn't be THAT hard to write an OS that was Linux or FreeBSD-based and would be mostly limited to web apps; it would be more-or-less a "big version" of what they do with phones.

Writing something that could compete with Windows is something else again. Not everyone wants or is prepared to accept the limitations of a web-based app.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> Also, wouldn't Google have to provide alternate browsers and support IE, Firefox, etc., just as Microsoft had to support alternatives to IE?


Microsoft isn't "supporting" alternatives. The organizations that offer the alternatives are doing all of their own work and Microsoft has to sit on their hands or risk raising the ire of the open platform countries.

Google appears to be where Microsoft said it was going in the late '80s and early '90s with a SaaS model and it just frosts Microsoft that Google doesn't have to bear the baggage of Windows compatibility to get there.

Those of us that have been around long enough remember that the IBM PC was originally designed as a smart terminal with little storage support.

Google has a ginormous advantage in that their OS stands to be considerably more portable and transparent across platforms. WinMo and the various brained versions of XP have proven that Windows doesn't scale very well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> For a company like Google, it wouldn't be THAT hard to write an OS that was Linux or FreeBSD-based and would be mostly limited to web apps; it would be more-or-less a "big version" of what they do with phones.


There are a number of real time O/S's out there that have a much smaller footprint than even the skiniest *nix that could easily serve as browser clients. You might remember the QNX demo that was a complete Internet ready setup that fit on a floppy disc.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Windows 7E versions for the Stupidpean Union has an interesting side effect...

Microsoft will supply the OS without IE as requested...

Then it dawned on some genius "How will a browser be downloaded if there is no browser to start with?" Imagine that!

So the the Stupidpean Union said Microsoft needs to include all the browsers and let the users decide..

Let's see...how's that again?

Microsoft can't include IE, but then they have to go to the effort of including everyone else's browser? Who get's included? Who decides?

Wouldn't a better idea be to let the Microsoft and the rest of the Browser guys compete with programs for the PC makers, and let them place browsers in their custom builds?

Or is the idea just to beat up on Microsoft?



harsh said:


> Microsoft isn't "supporting" alternatives. The organizations that offer the alternatives are doing all of their own work and Microsoft has to sit on their hands or risk raising the ire of the open platform countries.
> 
> Google appears to be where Microsoft said it was going in the late '80s and early '90s with a SaaS model and it just frosts Microsoft that Google doesn't have to bear the baggage of Windows compatibility to get there.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> Microsoft isn't "supporting" alternatives.


Yes they are, in as much as MS had to provide options for users to specify the default browser, so that if a user chooses not to use IE, the browser of their choice is presented when any internet call is made. Until MS provided this option, users could use the browser of their choice, but applications that went to the internet always used IE, not the browser the user chose.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Ira Lacher said:


> . . . and how private will your data be?


I don't use ANY of Giggle's tools. No toolbars, desktop apps, goofy-mail, checkout or anything else. I use them as a search engine only. I don't trust them for anything else.

----

Why would anyone strive to create an OS based on a browser? Seems a bit bass-ackwards.

----

Which browsers shoud be preinstalled?

IE, FireFox, SeaMonkey, Opera and maybe one or two others.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> There are a number of real time O/S's out there that have a much smaller footprint than even the skiniest *nix that could easily serve as browser clients. You might remember the QNX demo that was a complete Internet ready setup that fit on a floppy disc.


This is so true, I even wrote an OS that could be used for this type of thing. One that is strictly 64 bit is Menuet OS which also fits on a floppy. It is fast too mainly due to the lack of all the overhead and it is written in assembly language, which forces folks to write things more to the point without all the overhead. I suspect that Google will not do this thought, they said they intend to leverage all those Linux types for theirs, which will come with baggage too.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Ha ha!
Whilst MS is going after Google with their Bing project, Google slips in the back door and offers an OS. :lol:

Maybe one day MS will learn that in order to hit a fast moving target, you need to shoot ahead of it, not where it's already been.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> Why would anyone strive to create an OS based on a browser? Seems a bit bass-ackwards.


I don't know, it seems to have worked OK for MS so far.

With me and MS, the issue isn't so much that they preload their browser and no others. Big deal. The problem is that you can't remove the browser, because they made it part of the OS.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

A few details: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LarryFlowers said:


> Then it dawned on some genius "How will a browser be downloaded if there is no browser to start with?" Imagine that!


For the more creative types that don't think it terms of how to do things only using IE, a simple wget client would work just dandy to obtain the installation package (.msi or .exe). If you didn't want to risk exposing anyone to useful freeware, I would assume that there is still an FTP client in Windows 7 that could be used as an alternative.

It appears that Microsoft is now offering IE8 as a standalone install (~13.3-16.1MB) so I would think this would be trivial.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

smiddy said:


> This is so true, I even wrote an OS that could be used for this type of thing. One that is strictly 64 bit is Menuet OS which also fits on a floppy.


Ha! I remember Minuet for DOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Internet_Users_Essential_Tool


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> Until MS provided this option, users could use the browser of their choice, but applications that went to the internet always used IE, not the browser the user chose.


I've had Firefox set up as the default browser in all versions of Windows that I've run for many years now. Windows/Microsoft Update uses IE, but everything else defaults to your selected default web browser.

Start->Set Program Access and Defaults->Choose a default web browser:


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> For the more creative types that don't think it terms of how to do things only using IE, a simple wget client would work just dandy to obtain the installation package (.msi or .exe). If you didn't want to risk exposing anyone to useful freeware, I would assume that there is still an FTP client in Windows 7 that could be used as an alternative.
> 
> It appears that Microsoft is now offering IE8 as a standalone install (~13.3-16.1MB) so I would think this would be trivial.


And what percentage of PC owners can use an FTP client? Most of them even have problems with ANY browser!!


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> I've had Firefox set up as the default browser in all versions of Windows that I've run for many years now. Windows/Microsoft Update uses IE, but everything else defaults to your selected default web browser.
> 
> Start->Set Program Access and Defaults->Choose a default web browser:


Or it ask you if you want to set it up as your deafult browser.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

Like Drew2k said who will honestly go alone with Googles idea and offer Googles OS on their computers? That will be a good contract though if someone decides to do that. Plus if its a stable OS and can do things like MS does it will sell good. Consumers will have a another option to choose from. Hey I like Vista but if someone makes something bigger and better I will go along with it. 

Maybe it might even be FREE!! jk


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

With ads every click!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> And what percentage of PC owners can use an FTP client? Most of them even have problems with ANY browser!!


If they can click on an icon, they can download something using FTP. They'll be fine as long as you don't tell them what's happening behind the curtain.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

turey22 said:


> Like Drew2k said who will honestly go alone with Googles idea and offer Googles OS on their computers?


I can see any number of up-start netbook makers wanting to use a universal O/S. Maybe they won't start out all that popular in the US, but there's a very large market for simple machines that can get people around on the web fer cheap. Think WebTV but with a much more powerful browser.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> If they can click on an icon, they can download something using FTP. They'll be fine as long as you don't tell them what's happening behind the curtain.


Without adding a third-party FTP like win-ftp. . .where have you seen an icon for FTP?

And like I said earlier. . . what percentage would understand FTP? They don't understand downloading something on the browser now. . . yet they click on an email that installs something bad!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> I've had Firefox set up as the default browser in all versions of Windows that I've run for many years now. Windows/Microsoft Update uses IE, but everything else defaults to your selected default web browser.
> 
> Start->Set Program Access and Defaults->Choose a default web browser:


Thank you for agreeing with me that Microsoft supports alternative browsers (as far as choosing defaults goes). Now back to my original point - will Google have to do the same or be permitted to only allow Chrome?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

And now the 1 million dollar question, how many years will the be in beta.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

It only took, what ... 5 years for GMail to leave Beta?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Marlin Guy said:


> Ha ha!
> Whilst MS is going after Google with their Bing project, Google slips in the back door and offers an OS. :lol:
> 
> Maybe one day MS will learn that in order to hit a fast moving target, you need to shoot ahead of it, not where it's already been.


What exactly are you laughing at? Your describing EXACTLY what google is doing when you laugh at Microsoft for Bing.

Both are simply moving into each other's territory here. So where is the joke in this again...?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> Without adding a third-party FTP like win-ftp. . .where have you seen an icon for FTP?


Even batch files have an icon. A one line batch file can be created to start the ftp client and an accompanying script actually does the download.

```
ftp -A -s:getfox.ftp ftp.mozilla.org
```
Below is getfox.ftp (it doesn't actually work because I made some stuff up, but it illustrates how it is done)

```
bin
get pub/mozilla.org/firefox/.../en-US/Firefox.exe
quit
```
Apparently Microsoft's own plan calls for using Windows Explorer as an FTP client and having the choice injected into the Address: field by a wizard. Here's an article on the ComputerWorld website: http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...o_offer_IE8_at_retail_for_EU_Windows_7_buyers


ComputerWorld article said:


> Microsoft will also make IE8 available to European Windows 7 users via FTP download, the almost-forgotten "file transfer protocol," said the company spokeswoman. "[Those] distribution details are still being worked out," she said.
> 
> Even without a browser, Windows 7 users can download software via FTP by using the operating system's file manager. In Windows Explorer, users can set up a new "network location" using a wizard-like tool, then specify an FTP server with the syntax "ftp://ftp.address.com," such as "ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox," where Firefox is located.


Leave it to Microsoft to complicate things by inserting one of their infamous wizards and using a tool (Windows Explorer) that cannot be easily debugged.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me that Microsoft supports alternative browsers (as far as choosing defaults goes).


Allowing the user to configure defaults is not exactly what I'd call a tall order that involves upkeep and maintenance typically associated with "supporting" something. It is little more than a wizard that changes a file association or a registry entry for you. There are probably much easier ways than creating a wizard (like asking on first invocation as they all seem to do) but it would be nearly as mysterious.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

My guess is that 90% of typical (non-geek) computer users have no idea what FTP is, let alone how to use it.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Harsh, you and I and hopefully a large % of folks here know batch files, icons and shortcuts but that 90% or so start glazing over when you hand them instructions like the computerworld article.

Even with wizards, they 1) have no idea what they're doing, 2) have no idea WHY they're doing it and never understand the outcome - as long as it works.

They know the steps to get their spreadsheet or printout done, see the pictures from their camera and buy and load music on their iPod or mp3 player. (not to mention surfing the porn sites!)


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> Ha! I remember Minuet for DOS.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Internet_Users_Essential_Tool


This is the one I am refering to: http://www.menuetos.net/


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me that Microsoft supports alternative browsers (as far as choosing defaults goes). Now back to my original point - will Google have to do the same or be permitted to only allow Chrome?


This opens up a whole new can of worms. Does Google write an interface document such that other programs can be used with Chrome (the OS) or do they leave it private? Right now I would say they leave it to their own devices and see where it goes. I think there has to be boundary limits, it can't be an end all be all OS, not yet anyway. It will take it until it reaches version 3 before it is likely mature enough to be called an OS for the masses anyhow. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, though this will sound that way, I think Google intentionally let their plans out of the bag as a means to get Microsoft to be more competitive with their Windows 7 pricing. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a small fish in a big ocean.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

smiddy said:


> This opens up a whole new can of worms. Does Google write an interface document such that other programs can be used with Chrome (the OS) or do they leave it private? Right now I would say they leave it to their own devices and see where it goes. I think there has to be boundary limits, it can't be an end all be all OS, not yet anyway. It will take it until it reaches version 3 before it is likely mature enough to be called an OS for the masses anyhow. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, though this will sound that way, I think Google intentionally let their plans out of the bag as a means to get Microsoft to be more competitive with their Windows 7 pricing. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a small fish in a big ocean.


Excellent questions and comments. Glad to see someone is picking up on my earlier question ... which was even repeated.


----------



## sideswipe (Dec 4, 2008)

it looks as if google is going Linix based & shooting for netbooks according 2 tomshardware (sorry for generic link will update later when get exact one)


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

smiddy said:


> This is the one I am refering to: http://www.menuetos.net/


Cool, so how does it compare to Ubuntu? And can I get an XP Emulator for Menuet to run my Win Apps?


----------



## sideswipe (Dec 4, 2008)

so the OS is open source, will be free, & has a long list of partners

also it will be stripped down to basics, good read here @ AnandTech


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> Harsh, you and I and hopefully a large % of folks here know batch files, icons and shortcuts but that 90% or so start glazing over when you hand them instructions like the computerworld article.


I'm not sure what you're saying.

I'm pretty sure that 90% of the posters here didn't know that FTP could be scripted and more than a few think that _everything_ (except maybe e-mail) on the Internet moved via IE using HTTP (which may become the case if Microsoft keeps screwing up IE's ftp implementation).

That's the beauty of my scripts. You click on an icon and the corresponding browser install package shows up. You could even set up an old fashioned text menu or commentary as in the days of old if that made sense to someone. Somehow I just know that Microsoft would set up some horrible XML-based "tool" that is incomprehensible to read and similarly difficult to understand for the curious reader.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Or is the idea just to beat up on Microsoft?


I think that sums it up nicely.



smiddy said:


> This is the one I am refering to: http://www.menuetos.net/


I remember that one, I still have a copy of it (somewhere).



sideswipe said:


> so the OS is open source, will be free, & has a long list of partners
> 
> also it will be stripped down to basics, good read here @ AnandTech


Yeah, VERY stripped down, from your last link.



> Rather than rattle off the entire contents of their announcement, let's hit the high points. *Google's Chrome OS is an OS designed to do one thing and one thing only: run Google Chrome.* It will be open source, it will run on ARM and x86, it's Linux based, and it's not going to launch until the second half of 2010. Taking a page out of Apple's book, Google is announcing it now as a way to avoid another party spilling the beans before Google is ready.


I think that answers *houskamp*'s question about program availability. I do not think I'm going to go for a OS than only supports a browser.


----------



## sideswipe (Dec 4, 2008)

Draconis said:


> I think that answers *houskamp*'s question about program availability. I do not think I'm going to go for a OS than only supports a browser.


me either, sounded neat @ 1st since Chrome is a good browser, but an OS with only that would be a pain


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 90% of the posters here didn't know that FTP could be scripted and more than a few think that _everything_ (except maybe e-mail) on the Internet moved via IE using HTTP (which may become the case if Microsoft keeps screwing up IE's ftp implementation).
> 
> That's the beauty of my scripts. You click on an icon and the corresponding browser install package shows up. You could even set up an old fashioned text menu or commentary as in the days of old if that made sense to someone. Somehow I just know that Microsoft would set up some horrible XML-based "tool" that is incomprehensible to read and similarly difficult to understand for the curious reader.


I was actually giving the benefit of the doubt that 90% of the general population (mentioned in the post following mine -non-geeks) didn't understand batch files or scripts . . . not 90% of the posters here.

I probably attribute 50% or more of my income over the last 20+ years to scripts / batch file automation of mundane tasks.


----------

