Mac has instant on now. Put a mac to sleep, wake it up when ready for use -- the cursor is instantly there, and so are all your apps right where you left them. OS X is so stable that you can do this for months straight without problem.

no one wants to hear ur mac bs go away

Outstanding article - I applaud you for saying all the things that we are all thinking.

Good Job!

Publius is correct; the Mac has the ability to come out of sleep mode almost instantly. In theory, Windows has both sleep (which is simply a low-power, no display mode) and hibernate, which saves the current machine state to the hard drive and brings it back on next power-up. Unfortunately, neither one works very well. Linux sleeps and hibernates quite well, which is not surprising since it is quite similar to BSD, the core inspiration for Mac OS X.

And as you you, sing sing, until you are capable of spelling entire words and inserting appropriate punctuation, no professional computer user will take you seriously. You write like a 3rd-grader who failed basic English.

I'm excited about Chrome OS because it's the first practical competition to Windows that has a financial backer that everyone knows and mostly trusts since Microsoft used illegal marketing tactics to run DRI out of business. Competition is good for the consumer; it drives up the quality and drives down the price.

Yay for sensationalism.

Claiming that a netbook OS designed to be barebones enough to support only a web browser would make Microsoft sweat about competition against their corporate stronghold is just a liiiiiittle sensationalist.

I highly doubt Microsoft has anything to fear from Yet Another Linux.

Crucial for me is the idea (mentioned in passing in Number 3) that it should be able run okay offline and not depend on the web for its usability all the time. Cloud computing is useless if offline functions are significantly crippled. It needs to be comparable to non-Cloud-based systems even when not connected to the internet. If I can't use it on a plane, I don't want it.

I was thinking the best thing to put on the boot up splash screen would be the words "don't panic".

so long and thanks for all the fish.

Go google. Microsoft did the exact same thing with the web browser. You had to pay for netscape. Then Microsoft offered IE for free. Where is Netscape anyway?

Seriously? Not a huge deal. There are a ton of lightweight *nix distros out there. And I highly doubt I'm going to be switching to any of them full time until they start supporting a 3D API that is compatible with a majority games.

I really want them to do this well. But honestly, I am not really interested in the low end PC world. I would definatly load this up on a web device to screw around with. Getting hardware developers to make drivers for this OS is a whole nuther hurdle.

Where's Netscape?
It is in Firefox* ;)

* The Gecko rendering engine used in Firefox was derived from Netscape open-sourced code. Hell, even the plugin API of Firefox is called NPAPI (Netscape Plugin API) and it is used not only on Firefox but also Opera, Chrome, Netscape (duh) and others.

Ill still stay with Ubuntu Linux for now

Coming out of "sleep mode" on a Mac is not the same as the (true) "instant-on" being described for the Chrome OS. This is due to the CPU and RAM memory which still draws power although at a reduced rate. "Instant-on" in this case refers to going from a completely powered-off state to an operable desktop with as minimal booting time as possible.

From what I've been reading elsewhere regarding Chrome OS with its applications residing in the "cloud", it is reminiscent of the old days of computing where one did work on a mainframe through a dumb-terminal.

design me an OS that can run games without sucking.

That Google would go after this new business surprises only those that don't understand Google. Industrial-era thinkers believe you should "stick to your focus". Like GM. But Google knows that in an information economy if you don't keep moving into new markets with new technologies looking for more revenues you won't survive. Read more at http://www.ThePhoenixPrinciple.com

@hollywood_hillbilly
Done, it's called DOS. Works great, MS-DOS isn't too bad either.

Personally I prefer POSIX compliant systems, but that's only for technical reasons. What you should be asking for is game developers to write games for platforms that don't suck.

Excepting issues like video drivers and good front ends like OpenGL the OS has very little to do with whether or not it can run a game. The game developer chooses a target platform.

Personally I vote for POSIX platforms for targetting deployment of games, since you can wrap a micro linux around it and stick it on any Game console, or compile for mac or linux platform. You can even with a bit of work get such a program to compile on windows.

But it is not the OS that is causing limited deployment of games, it is the game companies and which tools they choose to use that is the issue.

@TH4T6UY as above, YOU DEVELOP GAMES FOR PLATFORMS. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It surprises me that everyone thinks windows is going to be threatened by this, personally I think Linux is the one in trouble when this hits. Sure it will keep it basement dwelling fan boys who only really hate windows because they're jealous of Bill Gates' money.

/rant over

I'll probably give it a go. Sure it will find a place in the market.

I agree with Darnum: it had to be able to be functiounal operating system even without the internet. I am very curious to see what they will come up with for programs like MWord Excel, Powerpoint etc. Will they include a music program or let itunes do all the work?

I agree with the fact that the apps still need to run when off-line. Even in the most wired cities, you dont always get service and it's not always free (at least yet). Paying Starbucks $12/hr to connect to the web so that I can finish my report in a word processing app would be too much.

And Redstone is right too...this is just a larger scale version of the dumb terminals (ok, a little better).
At least with those setups, your (or your company) controlled your infrastructure and apps so you know that you have service.
A good DOS attack and Google cloud could be down a long time..along with the app and your data (if thats how it is saved - and that will be a totally different issue).

The other issue that they need to be sure to address is the fact that right now Google apps utilize javascript for a ton of the browser functionality. Assuming that most cloud-based apps go that route (to be lightweight), they need to determine a new scheme to prevent malicious coders from hijacking apps.
RIght now, in MS Office, you can disable any macros that you are unsure of. On the web browser..if you disable Javascript, you would have just killed any functionality in the app.
I live Javascript and the functionality it provides, but it gives a lot of room for hackers too.

I am looking forward to this, but there definitely are some serious hurdles to consider and overcome.

Regarding this statement:

"If the applications you write for Google Chrome will also run on Linux, Mac OS X and Windows 7, wouldn't you rather write for Chrome? You'll sell a whole lot more copies of an application if every computer in the world can run it. If Google can make it so that Chrome OS applications truly will run on everything else, this could be a slam dunk."

Surely this is the most ridiculous statement ever made.
If applications could be written that would run on any OS, how is that going to increase the Chrome OS penetration into the market? If it will run in Windows or on the Mac, what's the hook to make people switch to Chrome OS?

This is besides the fact that you can't just magically make applications run across all OS's unless the application is completely hosted remotely. Very few people are going to pay for an application that doesn't actually reside on their system and can only be used when connected to the net, in my opinion.

#2:

Just goes to show; quadra hundreds of billions of dollars and unlimited time can do anything. Would have been better off inventing a transporter; or going to Alpha Centauri.

I have vista and i can put it to sleep, press any button or wiggle the mouse and its back up within 3 seconds. Not instant, but if 3 seconds is long for you, then your just super impatient. My vista still boots up in a mere 15 seconds with my solid state drive with 128MB cache which is damn good for Vista.

Forgot to add that I can also have it sleep for months at a time with no issues. yay

This is a great idea, really it is. Although there are lots and lots of lightweight operating systems out there already, many people do not know about them or refuse to use them for several reasons. However, if they were to see a Google operating system, they would know that this is a system they can trust. HOWEVER! In my opinion this will NOT be a replacement for Windows, or even, dare I say it...Mac. The fact is keeping such a thing as an operating system simple will not only drive it so success, it will stop it from reaching its full potential. Users like me that NEED the features that Windows offers online AND offline will never switch to a lightweight OS simply because it is lightweight. Of course I will still be putting it on my netbook (dell mini 9) to play around with it, but it will be as a dual boot because I am sure I will miss Windows too much to stick with it as a permanent solution. I feel I should also mention that I have Windows 7 RC running on my netbook perfectly. It is a great operating system which has eliminated the few bugs that are left in Vista. I'm pulling for Google on this one, but not to revolutionize the way we use our computers, but as a source of simplicity for those that need something, well, simple!

Bottom line: Nothing is truly free. At some point people will realize what they are giving up. I don't have a problem with Chrome. I have a problem with giving our lives away to a single, giant corporation.

I think a lot of you are missing the point of this OS.

If you're talking about POSIX, or an OS for games, this is not for you.

If you're a die hard Mac/Windows fan, this OS is not for you.

If you want a heavy hitting program, like photoshop, and not just the lightweight version that will do the same basic functions without getting into the rendering and higher functions, this OS REALLY isn't for you.

If the only time you spend not on the internet is the time it takes to boot up your computer, then you are the target demographic here.

Windows is a bloated operating system, even the Home versions carry baggage that millions of users will never use, and cost a fortune. But it's easy to use, as is a Mac OS. Linux incarnations are free, but can be intimidating to use. Even Ubuntu has the daunting command line function that turns users away. Google is offering a slim OS, that's (supposedly) going to be easy to use, and FREE. That sounds like a great thing for netbooks, which probably aren't used a whole lot for things other than "net" functions.

That's not to say that everyone Google is aiming for is going to make the switch, but, yeah, the big companies should be sweating.

As someone who has: A few windows desktops, a mac laptop, and Ubuntu lying around here somewhere, I'd be more than willing to try out Chrome OS and see how it stands up to the "competition".

Maybe Chrome will come with a suite of apps like Word, Excel, iLife, etc that let you read and load the other apps stuff and works better than them.

The only thing tying me to Windows is Excel (programmable spreadsheet) really.

MS, Mac, and Linux do completely different things. Linux is more for techies to change and share with other people what they changed. Mac is more for the design firms and people who watch more movies and listen to more music then play games on the computer. Microsoft is normaly for business applications. MS is designed so that other people can change the settings from another computer or program easier than you could yourself. it's also great for heavy gaming.

I think Google chrome will have a place in the techno world without causing too much revenue leaving the big duo. I think Chrome os will be more geared towards people who can't afford any thing else or our elders who want simplicity. It would also be great for libraries, you can only get online with library computers any way. Chrome has a place, but it's not neccisarily competition, every os has there strong points.

Google Picasa is no Photoshop either, but it will do most of what we need to do most of the time, and do it very fast, and so will GIMP. Open Office does Wod Count very nicely in a small window of it's own, on top or off to the side of the app, if you desire.

Interesting and at the same time boring. Personally I have no use for a netbook. But for those that do this might prove to be a nice change. People generally use what they are familiar with when it comes to app and OSs and leave it at that. The same old boring rants about better this or that are still there. I still prefer my tried and true legal pad and a #2 pencil for ease of use and lightweight portability. Besides it needs no battery or power source. Getting tired of more and more devices that fall short of their promises to make my life better through limited usability and just plain sucking money out of my pocket several hundred dollars at a time.

The last device I purchased was my iPhone and it has come the closest so far. And it fits in my pants or shirt pocket. haven't seen a netbook do that yet.

Hope it's free. I'll keep running windows on another partition for projects that need heavy apps, but for general use, highlighting Chrome OS.

Not going to put MS under much strain.
1. CAD/CAE tools not going to be ported to Google OS.
2. Corporate IT won't go for the cloud when we're talking proprietary documents.
3. People with Macs won't dump their pricey hardware for another OS.
4. Why switch?
5. Most people purchasing a PC will not pull the trigger. Too many questions.

I have use Windows 7, Ubuntu 9.08 and Leopard OSX and to hear about Chrome OS by Google puts a big smile on my face.
Why? everything Google does is simple, slick, fast and web friendly. I think they will do a great job and I be waiting for the OS

One simple word, "government". The state and federal agencies are not going to jump on the Google band wagon. All the security software for government computers are designed for Windows. Federal agencies haven't even upgraded to explorer 8 (still on six due to stability and vulnerability issues, at least the agency I am a part of.) home users are going to use Chrome. I'll probably get one of the netbooks with it preinstalled. MS has nothing to worry about from major institutions switching over.

Yes, Mac sleep mode is that good. I turn my computer off about every two weeks just to get a fresh start, but my Mac never crashes while it's on or in sleep mode.

Mac is still the perfect hardware / software combo; the aesthetics cannot be beat. I can't imagine running Mac OS on a non-Mac machine.

Macs really are very, very good.

I agree that most corporations will not use this. its the same for the mac. I am in IT and people just dont bother with macs in the business world. You will see even less people going for chrome. Likewise If its going to be secure (If it gets popular) it will need constant updates. How can they keep it free then?