Do you think Google's FREE Chrome OS will eventually run on more PCs than Windows 7?

Wether you are excited or not about the upcoming Chrome OS, like Linux or not, or like or dislike Microsoft and Windows, what do you anticipate will be the outcome for Microsoft (regarding Windows 7) after Chrome OS is released? Try to base your vote on realistic expectations rather than your personal feelings.

NOTICE: This is a public poll. Your vote can be seen by others.

Have at it!

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

matradley

Really, Chrome OS will be a small ripple in the ocean. Do you really want to give Google all of your data and control? To use Chrome OS, you have to be online continuously and all of your data is on Google's servers.

mikedisd2

It's a nice thought but nah. MS Office alone would make this a no-sale.

msteinhilber

No, not a chance. There may be a day where another vendor begins to draw a more significant base of users away from Microsoft but Microsoft will either attempt to overcome whatever is attracting customers away from them or they will adapt to incorporate similar allures. If the free factor draws people in and actually did significantly impact Microsoft's customer base, I suspect Microsoft would adapt to a new business model to still churn a profit but still give customers what they desire.

I think the largest short-comings of the Chrome OS are the privacy concerns and the online only factor. A huge amount of my user base in my job use their mobile computing platforms (notebooks or netbooks) remotely often in environments where they do not have access to Internet. A device loaded with Chrome OS would be useless to people in this situation.

Google has designed Chrome OS so that it is not intended to be an individuals primary computing platform. That in itself really goes a long way in taking away from the likelihood of Chrome OS being run on more PC's that Windows 7.

Not going to happen with Chrome OS, maybe down the road (many years) things will change and Google might release a "real" OS, but IMO Chrome OS is more of an application to me.

HeroPsycho

If there will be a Windows killer, it will be because the average everyday person will run their apps in the cloud, and Microsoft doesn't adapt Windows to that business model. But Microsoft over and over again adapts, so I'm betting it won't happen.

Basically, if Microsoft either reduces costs on Windows licenses for new machines, or makes a free version that's stripped down of features, that would keep them in the game from a cost standpoint. I don't see anything significant ChromeOS has over Windows other than cost.

NinjaBoy

For netbooks, possibly. However for normal day to day PC's, I very much doubt it. Imagine, using your PC (with Chrome OS) and your internet dies. You won't have any access to your docs, etc... Let alone those gamers of us who don't really play online

-ken

petedude

I doubt Chrome OS will have much impact, EXCEPT--

it will further encourage folks to accept, if not adopt, Linux. That is always a good thing!

msteinhilber

petedude wrote: »

I doubt Chrome OS will have much impact, EXCEPT--

it will further encourage folks to accept, if not adopt, Linux. That is always a good thing!

I'm not even so sure about this one. If anything it might make people assume you need to be on the Internet to use Linux which could turn some away.

Mishra

I don't think ChromeOS is a direct competitor to Windows 7. ChromeOS to me is designed for the very simple home user that you just want their computer to do the things that is needed.

My guess is that this OS will be mostly pushed by IT folks wanting to get their grandmother on an OS that never breaks so they don't ever have to support them.

disi

Chrome OS might become THE OS for any net-/ notebook or phone out there. It boots straight into the browser and offers all the applications you might need on your way. Since it is based on Linux, it is compatible with upcoming ARM processors in mobile devices.

I don't see users remove their preinstalled Windows 7 on desktops or bigger laptops to install Chrome OS on it. Microsofts marketshare will stay stable due to preinstalled OS and Games compatibility in the private sector, also companies using Windows as their main desktop OS.

snokerpoker

Maybe a month or so ago I would have thought that this was possible. But then I used the Chrome browser...... I don't like the way it looks at all. Granted I have not seen too many screen shots or videos of the actual OS, but I'm assuming it looks more or less like the browser so I will not be on board.

Claymoore

To most customers, Windows is already 'free'. I'm not talking about the price of an upgrade copy of Windows 7 or an OEM license ordered from NewEgg. By free I mean customers either do not see the cost of the OS as a line item or the license is included with other items.

For example, Windows 7 comes free on a new PC. Customers don't know and probably don't care how much Dell paid for the license. Back in the day Microsoft got a set amount for every PC sold - regardless of whether Windows was actually installed. Rather than HP having to buy $100 copies of Windows, Microsoft allowed them to install Windows provided they paid them $20 per PC. Even if OS2 was installed, MS got their money. I believe this practice was discontinued as part of one of the antitrust cases, but MS already had their market share and Windows is still installed on almost every retail PC.

Corporate customers typically don't buy licenses one at a time. They buy groups of licenses through various agreements like Select, School or Enterprise Agreements. If you buy a standard user CAL through an EA, that comes with CALs for AD, Exchange, SharePoint, etc., which you need regardless of whether the OS is Chrome or the browser is Firefox. By the time you buy all the CALs and licenses and software assurance, Windows 7 becomes just another license included in the package.

Maybe folks building custom PCs from parts off NewEgg chose a free Chrome OS over Windows. Many of those who would switch to Chrome are probably already running another Linux distro, so they are just stealing market share from other Linux distros. Eventually Chrome may have enough share to have some color on a market share pie chart, but I doubt it will take over the world.

Even without world domination, will Chrome be a successful OS? I hope so, because competition makes everyone better. When MS gets complacent, we get products like IE6 or Vista. When MS feels pressured, we get Windows 7 and Exchange 2010.

Pash

While I do think market share is important, nobody is shifting Microsoft from the business world or their lion share of home desktop market anytime soon. I will give Googles incarnations a go and try to see the sense of their product, but I may not even adopt it even though I am a fan of Google!

tiersten

In a business environment, it has no chance. Considering the massive amount of effort that Microsoft and various IT departments put into making legacy applications still work it is obvious that backwards compatibility is major thing.

It may have a chance of getting decent marketshare in the realm of the home user who has minimal requirements and is okay with having everything in "the cloud". They'll get complaints however because the user will eventually buy AmazingGame v3.14 or AmazingApplication v2.71 doesn't run because it is a Windows app though even though they were told that everything is in the cloud these days...

I can see it working well in the nettop/tablet arena though. Linux is already pretty prevalent in that market but it is extremely fragmented as manufacturers do their own thing in generally dire horrible ways.

disi

Northbr1dge wrote: »

From what I understand, ChromeOS will only run on ChromeOS devices. How can this possibly cause a shift in our Windows-centric world?

Any x86 or ARM/Sparc/Risc will do. Actual ChromeOS is currently changing to use the Gentoo Portage system which makes it even more compatible to different architectures.

tiersten wrote:

I can see it working well in the nettop/tablet arena though. Linux is already pretty prevalent in that market but it is extremely fragmented as manufacturers do their own thing in generally dire horrible ways.

There is no one Linux, mostly those manufactores have their own modules/drivers that needs to be supported on the system. Unfortunately not all those modules make it upstream into the real world kernel. A good example is Android, just recently the code got kicked out of the kernel sources because there was nobody maintaining it. They just provided some early beta code to the kernel team, then worked on in their basement and didn't provide any more updates.
What I want to say is, that this is not Linux' fault but the fault of the manufactures.

Anyway, mostly they use the official kernel, patch it and create a fancy GUI around it...

Zartanasaurus

Not even close.

veritas_libertas

Not a chance! It's for cloud computing exclusively!

NetworkingStudent

I Can Repair PCs wrote: »

Wether you are excited or not about the upcoming Chrome OS, like Linux or not, or like or dislike Microsoft and Windows, what do you anticipate will be the outcome for Microsoft (regarding Windows 7) after Chrome OS is released? Try to base your vote on realistic expectations rather than your personal feelings.

NOTICE: This is a public poll. Your vote can be seen by others.

Have at it!

I haven’t used it yet, but I don’t see it making much of an impact on the majority of end users. Most people are reluctant to change, so they will stick with the standard Windows OS. I often get the feeling that Google isn’t happy until they have their hand in every technology market available. I saw a story the other day that they’re selling power and bandwidth..ugh what’s next Nic cards?

DevilWAH

I dont think out side of netbooks it will see much time on home PC's. you not going to use iof for gameing or video editting. So it will only be good for lowend internet/email devices.

In compinies however I think it could be very different. There is a big push towards Virtulitations, and one of the big points here is virtual desktops using thin clients. And with the resorces it has behind it Google is in a strong postition to be a large player. you can already use VMware and Citrix virtual desktops though an internet browser. So the server side is already established.

If google can produce a cheap (free) and light weight OS to run on the client side. and they market it well, then I can see them taking a large slice of this market. OK maybe not outselling windows 7. But I can see it becoming a mainstream product.

tiersten

disi wrote: »

There is no one Linux, mostly those manufactores have their own modules/drivers that needs to be supported on the system. Unfortunately not all those modules make it upstream into the real world kernel.

They generally start off with a particular version/flavour of a distribution which may be popular or extremely obscure and then add various customisations to it. The problem as you've noted is that they also generally don't do things properly. It will be worked on just enough for it to run and then they'll ignore it and never provide updates. *cough*Asus*cough*

disi wrote: »

A good example is Android, just recently the code got kicked out of the kernel sources because there was nobody maintaining it. They just provided some early beta code to the kernel team, then worked on in their basement and didn't provide any more updates.

Android is the Linux kernel with big patches and with a very Android specific userland. The unusual auth system wasn't going to ever be accepted into the main Linux kernel even with a maintainer. It messes with way too many different code paths and excluding actual Android devices, isn't used by anybody else.

disi wrote: »

Anyway, mostly they use the official kernel, patch it and create a fancy GUI around it...

It is the kernel + patches and some sort of userland applications/utilities like the ones from GNU. You could make something that was completely incompatible with everybody else even with the stock Linux kernel by making the userland different.

It is one of Stallman's big complaints that everything should actually be named GNU/Linux because the Linux part is actually only the kernel itself. It is the GNU userland that provides everything else generally.