For one, how do you want to expose the majority of the hardware layer to 3rd party websites while maintaining security?

For two, how do you expect to allow people to work disconnected and how do you deal with privacy/intellectual property rights issues?

Why should I get a Linux based operating system with generalized drivers to run on my machine only using a fraction of its capabilities when I can run Windows and actually use the hardware I have?

I like Linux, don’t get me wrong – as a secondary machine or secondary OS to use when I’m not doing things like gaming, working with hardware, video editing, etc.

Unless Google pulls out a few miracles, “Chrome OS” will get lumped into that same category of toys that the i-Phone is in. Except, at least the i-Phone makes money off of sales and isn’t delusional enough to think it is seriously threatening Microsoft Windows.

Microsoft has no incentive to make the web as good or better a place to run apps than Windows. MS wants users running Windows, and that happens if users need it to run their apps.

I see two possible outcomes: either Chrome will take over the browser market (not likely – MS is a veteran of browser wars) or they will compel MS to improve IE enough to keep up, which will have the effect of making the web a better place to run apps. Google wins either way. The difference between the Netscape battle and this one is that Netscape could only win if they won the browser war. Google can lose the browser battle and still win the war, by forcing MS to help them abandon their local Windows apps.

I’m getting the sense that there’s some confusion about where the OS ends and the Windows GUI begins. Today’s netbooks are shipping with Linux and many users are replacing that with Ubuntu.

I’m struck by history — many of the arguments herein were the same arguments that a Windows GUI would never replace DOS. Why would someone use something so useless, when the DOS prompt was faster, more predictable, and more elegant?

It took Microsoft three versions before Windows 3.0 came out — and they made a lot of mis-steps along the way, such as using Cntl-P for paste instead of Ctrl-V.

I’d argue that all of you power users are not the audience. Surprisingly, there are a number of computer users out there that can’t afford to buy the Windows OS; whose government is subsidizing Internet access as a way to improve their Third World status, and who don’t need multi-channel audio nearly as much as they need a cheap word processor and email.

Think of it this way. On Mac OS X, there are literally dozens of desktop apps that are directly integrated with the Internet. How do they do it? They all share WebKit as a browser. Where do they get that capability for free? The OS. How about accelerated graphics rendering within the web browser? The OS. How about multi-channel audio? The OS. How about zoomable text rendering? You get the idea. If you think browser or Internet app vendors will create their own versions of these myriad resources absolutely necessary to experience the web, that’s madness.

The browser is just an app layer on top of the OS. That’s all. You may increasingly access traditional OS functionalities through the browser, but that doesn’t obviate the OS at all.

And I think Google guys are right. You can replace the OS by the browser in the “user point of view”. Of course, the computer still needs the OS, but not the user.

I can say that looking to my own “work process”. Two years ago, my main tools used to be: a notebook with MS Office, including Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook.

Nowaday, replacing those softwares by GMail, Google Calendar and Google Docs I can use any computer to work. Doesn’t matter the OS. I can use a laptop with Windows XP, a desktop with Vista, or a Mac or even a Linux with much less impact than just two years ago.

I’m using a notebook because I travel a lot, and I use the travel time in airplanes, taxi cabs etc to write a text or to reply an e-mail. But even to reply e-mails I prefer to use my iPhone than using my notebook.

So, if we think in more 4 or 5 years (think in Android, modern cellular phones like iPhone being popular, high speed internet connection almost everywhere (using cell towers or WiMax etc), I need to totally disagree with you, Kontra.

I think a good, fast e stable browser can replace an OS, not by the computer point of view, but by the user point of view. And if I could choose one monopoly, computers or user, I choose users, no doubt. As Google.

Best regards

The new browser is cool though.
Here are my thoughts:
http://techburner.com/2008/09/09/google-chrome-quick-look/

Along with a quick rebuttal as to why Chrome can never be an OS.

Indeed, it isn’t a new technical territory. But Google want to control that territory, I think. That excludes the idea of just joining some existing project.