I wonder if this is simply just a warning to microsoft to pay attention. a way of saying now its serious, what with bing and all, them is begin to collide markets.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
P.S. Yes JS is also cool when used properly, but again with the evils of web development, there are too many slightly differing implementations/dialects!

Most of the differences are in DOM objects that are exposed by the browser, so that's technically not the language but the data that the browser is supplying to the language. I have JScript code originally written for Internet Explorer in 2002 (wow, has it really been 7 years?) that runs as intended, across multiple browsers to this day.

they was recently trying to destroy the language with the new specification, ECMAScript 4. Im glad that did not gain traction.

Quote: Original post by Daerax
I wonder if this is simply just a warning to microsoft to pay attention. a way of saying now its serious, what with bing and all, them is begin to collide markets.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
P.S. Yes JS is also cool when used properly, but again with the evils of web development, there are too many slightly differing implementations/dialects!

Most of the differences are in DOM objects that are exposed by the browser, so that's technically not the language but the data that the browser is supplying to the language. I have JScript code originally written for Internet Explorer in 2002 (wow, has it really been 7 years?) that runs as intended, across multiple browsers to this day.

they was recently trying to destroy the language with the new specification, ECMAScript 4. Im glad that did not gain traction.

Who was recently trying to destroy the language? The 4th edition proposal was largely developed by Adobe for use as ActionScript 3, with several of the additions driven mostly by performance concerns. While I agree the additions seemed ill-suited to the language, I'd hardly call it an attempt to destroy the language.

Quote: Original post by Valderman
I think it's stupid. There's a reason the netbook market quickly turned away from its original premises and into tiny general purpose laptops: the netbook concept sucks. Even if we assume the battery problem (which is a total deal breaker as it stands) were to be solved, that all netbooks were equipped with 3G modems and that 3G didn't suck, why would anyone want to lug around something that doesn't fit in their pocket and isn't really usable without sitting down, just to access the Internet?

I already have a mobile communications device. It's called a cell phone, and it does pretty much everything a netbook does, and far better, albeit on a smaller display and without a QWERTY keyboard since it's a budget model. Additionally, I can make phone calls, send text messages and it fits in my pocket.

The netbook as just a mobile internet device was a stupid idea to begin with. However, Google is now taking this one step further, ensuring the total lack of compatibility with pretty much everything else and forcing prospective developers into the horror that is web application development, thus ensuring slow development, buggy applications, annoyed developers and a guarantee that there won't be any applications more complex than WordPad (which is about where Google Docs is) for the platform.

I'm puzzled. Do they really believe that their brand name recognition is enough to push this on people, or are they just trolling the world?

Wait, where did they market netbooks as nothing more than JUST the internet? I had always seen them marketed as a low cost, small, super portable computer that was designed with the power usage of most web browsing in mind. AKA, not something to run Doom 3000 on.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
Wait, where did they market netbooks as nothing more than JUST the internet? I had always seen them marketed as a low cost, small, super portable computer that was designed with the power usage of most web browsing in mind. AKA, not something to run Doom 3000 on.

Exactly, I've got a ASUS 1000HGO for about 6 months (10') and it's a pretty neat PC, I use it for internet at work and it's great for surfing from bed. It's powerful enough to do last minute editing for presentations, web and graphics. I can hook up to a projector, transfer data over wlan (160GB, enough to replace a portable disk), and it can play videos, so I can watch stuff like Academic Earth lectures from bed too (although not powerful enough to decode HD but at 10' screen, who cares ?). Battery life is 4 hours, which is also pretty good for a quick show off, and since I carry it in a hand bag power cable is easy to carry, and it's still lighter and smaller than a 'regular laptop'.

So for that amount of money I got a perfectly solid internet PC that I use on a daily basis and I don't need to be too careful not to break it since it's really cheap to replace.

And I can see how the 'Chrome OS' might appeal to some people since I've got a friend who uses his Acer as a primary computer only for internet (FB and mail).

An Aside.

Quote: Original post by nuvem
Who was recently trying to destroy the language? The 4th edition proposal was largely developed by Adobe for use as ActionScript 3, with several of the additions driven mostly by performance concerns. While I agree the additions seemed ill-suited to the language, I'd hardly call it an attempt to destroy the language.

An exaggeration yes. But among other things they were trying to add 'classes', modules and static binding in a manner that suggested a possibly broken understanding of what made &#106avascript or actionscript so useful. They were distancing it from its Scheme like essence which in my opinion is tantamount to destruction.<br><br>It is known that closures are isomorphic to objects. combined as they were with prototypes allows &#106avascript to be a lean, simple but extremely flexible functional language. not so different from scheme. By adding all the baggage of unnecessary complexity partly listed above they were taking away its true power by losing essence and direction.<br><br>That is my opinion.

When I first caught wind about this I was kind interested in the idea. I mean if anyone out there had the muscle to give it a go it would be Google. Then came the details and I'm now largely confused by the whole idea.

Firstly calling it an OS is reaching far. I see some merit in the idea that its kind of distancing applications from the OS but I think that would come at a high price regardless of how well it works. Not to mention the whole thing just sounds like the lazy way in.

It seems too high level and right off the cuff you are saying its only useful to the everyday user with basic Facebooking needs. A class of people that really represent only a portion of the need out there and who I would think are being supported fairly well as it is. So now you cater to a few people that really don't NEED anything else, and you cant really meet the need for developers, artist, and gamers. I doubt Photoshop for a browser is going to preform very well nor to I think companies really want their source code so readily accessible.

Then doesn't the idea that the planned software would run under any compatible browser kinda invalidate the whole thing? I mean why pay for a stripped "OS" when you can just do the same thing on any other platform and get all the function plus? I mean the K.I.S.S. mentality has a place and all but catering to the completely computer illiterate doesn't seem like much of a winning strategy for something the size of Google. I just don't see much of a winning strategy here.

Perhaps if it cost 20$ and gives people the internet, music, and video then thats fine. I wouldn't want it as it seems more like a multimedia gizmo than a computer but whatever.

Quote: Original post by Goober King

Perhaps if it cost 20$ and gives people the internet, music, and video then thats fine. I wouldn't want it as it seems more like a multimedia gizmo than a computer but whatever.

People are probably looking too much into them using the word OS.

Quote: Firstly calling it an OS is reaching far. I see some merit in the idea that its kind of distancing applications from the OS but I think that would come at a high price regardless of how well it works. Not to mention the whole thing just sounds like the lazy way in.

It seems too high level and right off the cuff you are saying its only useful to the everyday user with basic Facebooking needs. A class of people that really represent only a portion of the need out there

I have no doubt that that portion is in fact the majority of computer users :), what was the results of a recent survey something like 80% of computer users thought the browser was the internet or something (true you may laugh but youre prolly not surprised) (*)

Based on computer tracking software the top used applications ppl actually use, 9 out of the 10 are internet concerned the only non internet one that makes the top10 list is windows explorer (the file manager), adobe photoshop, microsoft word, world of warcraft etc fail to make the list.

I do agree with what you say elsewhere, IMO it is an easy method of doing an OS (+ strictly it cant even be called that)
though I dont think it'll cost 20$ but nothing.

One thing I would love to know, I asked on the General Programming forum but noone knew, what are the most impressive timecritical &#106avascript apps, I had a search around + couldnt find anything<br><br>(*)in fact in a few years time (if it aint happening already) ppl will begin to use the terms pc + internet synonymously

Quote: Original post by zedz

Quote: Firstly calling it an OS is reaching far. I see some merit in the idea that its kind of distancing applications from the OS but I think that would come at a high price regardless of how well it works. Not to mention the whole thing just sounds like the lazy way in.

It seems too high level and right off the cuff you are saying its only useful to the everyday user with basic Facebooking needs. A class of people that really represent only a portion of the need out there

I have no doubt that that portion is in fact the majority of computer users :), what was the results of a recent survey something like 80% of computer users thought the browser was the internet or something (true you may laugh but youre prolly not surprised) (*)

Based on computer tracking software the top used applications ppl actually use, 9 out of the 10 are internet concerned the only non internet one that makes the top10 list is windows explorer (the file manager), adobe photoshop, microsoft word, world of warcraft etc fail to make the list.

FireFox tops the list of most used application on my system. Yet I would say it clearly doesn't top out what I use for the majority of my time. I could send a 1000 text in a day but if I only spent 30min doing it that doesn't mean I toss out the rest of what I do a day just because the use counter is lower. Nor should I buy a phone that only texts just because I only snap pictures and place phone calls every now and then. Those abilities are key when they become needed. Do I text what my car looks like after a wreck? Being so limmited could easily come at the price of frustration especially if the only reason you can't do xy or z is because your running Chrome and not Windows.

I'm one of those strange people that actually has more than one computer at home and clearly would not fit into average user status. My work life is a little more average I would think. I use 3 different computers just for 1 task that I alone do and my job isn't the slightest bit computer related. There are dozens of systems throughout the building which every job uses for everything from image editing to order tracking. I've watched pallets of old systems being carted away for disposal. The bottom line is we have far more computers than we do people and that is true for a lot of companies out there. Heck there are people that use computers at work but cant afford one at home. Our main Photoshop designer doesn't have internet at home at all.

Bottom line is computers are big business in big business. The "average user" may only be interested in surfing the net but on the job there are entire businesses using loads of stuff that would be ill suited for such a thing even if it were financially viable to rewrite and rewire their private world.

So I'm not convinced the average user is a viable target just yet. A foot hold maybe.

goober you say
'The "average user" may only be interested in surfing the net'
and then in the next paragraph
'So I'm not convinced the average user is a viable target just yet'

which is a contradiction, I do agree with what youre saying, google OS is not something for you or me (+ prolly >90% of the ppl here) but we're not average users, we know the difference between the internet + a browser for a start :)

my main worry about this OS is what Oluseyi mentioned how good is the application caching behaviour