Chrome OS is only a failure to people living in the past

Point-Counterpont. In the second of two posts about Google's cloud-connected operating system and Chromebook, Joe Wilcox argues that PC defenders are an unimaginative lot living in the past. He refutes Larry Seltzer's morning commentary: "I'll take Windows and a good browser over Chrome OS."

There's a persistent arrogance among PC users that ignores a fundamental reality about personal computers: Their multifunctional, Jack-of-all-of-trades capability was, until recently, unparalleled among innovation devices. The PC's greatest defenders often compare what other devices can't do when evaluating their worthiness. It's that kind of reasoning, particularly among IT decision makers, that kept PDAs, cell phones and smartphones out of businesses. These devices usually entered through the backdoor -- by savvy, forward-thinking employees bringing in their own products. The PC was good enough and pain enough to manage went the IT organization's reasoning.

Most consumers or businesses don't use one tool for everything, because most devices have a single or primary function. So people have a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker and toaster in the kitchen, in other words than one device with all these functions. That's typical. The PC is, or was, atypical by doing many things pretty so then -- good enough, at any rate. That's changing as TVs take on PC functions or cellular handsets behave more like pocket computers than telephony devices. The reasoning against anything not a PC is simply that the device cannot replace the personal computer. I ask: Why does it have to? Why shouldn't it replace the PC, in appropriate context?

The problem isn't the new device's limitations

The problem isn't the new device's limitations, however the limitations of critics' thinking -- their lack of imagination. The PC's staunchest defenders -- and there are many of them commenting here at Betanews -- put too much emphasis on the device in other words than looking at what they might do with it. Filmmakers have shot music videos or films using nothing yet cell phones. Example of the former: Rob Dickson's "Oceans" music video, shot on a Nokia N93 mobile in late 2006. The 240p quality video looks fuzzy today, however it was pure innovation near five years ago. The other example: Soon afterwards iPhone 4 launched last year, film school grad student Michael Koerbel shot and edited the delightful "Apple of My Eye" short on the smartphone.

Larry talks about the past -- how Chrome OS is new take on the 1990s thin-computing concept that failed at the time and will do so now. "Chromebook is old wine in new bottles," he says. Some Betanews readers' arguments against Chrome OS are similar to Larry's -- pointing out limitations. What's old here isn't thin-computing nevertheless their thinking, clinging to 1980s-era concepts. PCs are faster and maybe prettier than they were 30 years ago, yet the basic concept of monitor, keyboard and mouse running software and connected to a corporate network is fundamentally the same. In the meantime, while the 2000s, cell phones dramatically changed. Tablets evolved from the PC and now the cloud-connected laptop is coming. The "can't do" crowd defends the PC past, during can-doers live in the present and the future. They use the right device, in applicable context and apply lots of imagination.

For closed-minded readers, I'll put context in, so then, another context. A bicycle might be good enough for riding around the neighborhood however not for a quick 25-mile commute to work. Most people would have a car and bicycle, like they would a PC and smartphone. Each has appropriate contextual usage. People do make phone calls via Skype on PCs, yet the majority of calls are made on the cellular handset. Similarly, the phone might be good enough for Web browsing or gaming on the go, nevertheless the PC would be better at home or at the office.

Car is either too much or unnecessary

But there are contexts where a car is either too much or unnecessary. When I lived in Manhattan, I got around on foot or by bike -- at times by subway or taxi. A car was simply too much for my travel needs, particularly considering proximity of things I needed and the cost of insuring and parking an auto in New York City. The same can be said for the PC. Most Town Car drivers I've met use a mobile phone as their primary PC -- or only one. It's more than enough in context of their spending so much of the work day on the go.

The point: Not every consumer or business employee needs Windows. Many students, who already live in the browser because of social media apps, are constantly connected to the Internet at home or school. Web applications running in Chrome OS on a flip-the-lid-and-it's-ready-to-use Chromebook has appeal. They can play games, watch TV shows from Hulu, watch or even rent movies from YouTube and stream tunes from Google's music service or one of many others -- just as MOG or Pandora. For most of what they need, Chromebook will be good enough. The first Chromebooks from Acer and Samsung are thin and light and affordable, starting at $349. There's dual context for students -- their needs versus a Chromebook's capabilities and price and their experience to the letter living in a browser.

Similarly, many workers don't need Windows, particularly if they're in customer service roles where the back-end data system is accessed via web browser. They're not running data locally definitely -- no more than would be cachable and accessible on Chrome OS as Windows running a browser. The whole "what if the Net connection goes down criticism" is pointless. If the network goes down, they're not going to be able to work in any case. In context of their needs, the IT organization is buying too much hardware and spending too much for the employees' roles. If employees are using Windows thin customers, is Chromebook so different at that time?

There are lots of scenarios like this one where Chromebook would make as much sense, or more, than a Windows desktop or laptop. The possible savings over Windows PCs running Office are potentially huge, as I explained last week.

Larry defines Chrome OS by what it can't do. Let me tell you something it can do that many people need: Iterate and innovate at rapid pace. Google's Chrome OS development is loosely tied to its web browser, which is on hellfire, six-week development cycles. Already, Google has released Chrome 10 and 11 this year, and v12 is in beta. Google is improving the browser and browser OS at breakneck pace, issuing automatic updates as stable builds are ready. In the meantime, three or more years separate each new Windows version, which businesses or consumers must buy and deploy -- a particularly hard burden for IT organizations.

What Chrome OS can do is bring managed computing into the 21st Century. It relegates the operating system to the place it belongs -- as a necessary nevertheless largely inconsequential utility. That's terrible for Microsoft's business model yet a boon of savings for consumers and businesses -- and it removes them from the hardship of managing updates or purchasing new software.

Related: Applications. PC defenders argue, as Larry does, that web apps aren't good enough. Clearly they are. They're often better, because the user interfaces are simpler and more compact. With Office comes bloatware of features and code. Web apps pull much of the complexity to the server, freeing up local resources and providing the user with more of what he or she needs contextually. Millions of consumers and businesses are satisfied with mobile applications, which as well are small, tidy and consume lower resources than PC software. Mobile and web apps share similar profile, in that respect.

Chrome OS and Chromebook won't be for everyone -- not today. Nevertheless given how fast is Google's development cycle, like as not most anyone will be the truism by the time Microsoft ships Windows 8, or whatever the hell it's called.

Joe, I think you do not understand one very important aspect here.What Google is doing with ChromeOS is, that they are trying to make an OS from a browser. Current implementation of a browser relies on HTML, which like PDF or WORD is a document language. Even HTML5 is just a simple HTML with glued on crap that kind of allows to create applications.Nevertheless browser is a very BAD OS. HTML was never intended to be anything more than PDF is. Did anyone ever thought of creating an OS based on PDF or WORD?So from that perspective Google is taking a very bad approach - and God help developers and web users if ChromeOS will become mainstream. That would take Personal Computing to the 40's.HTML is dead.Java, and later Microsoft with Silverlight were the first ones to realize that the web at this stage is already at the dead end. WEB needs a new innovation and fast. Web has to become an OS. So it needs the same security, flexibility, power at this stage expected from an OS.I am in love with Silverlight and I think it is the only innovation that has the capacity and capability to be an OS of the at once WEB.And that's what Microsoft is doing. Silverlight is at the core of WP7, it can be used on the web, desktop, it will be at the center of .appx in Windows 8, it runs on embeded. As you can see Silverlight has done much more to become a proper "connected OS" on different screens than anything else.If Google would be SMART and not just an arrogant bunch of anti-microsoft folks - they would adopt Silverlight for ChromeOS as an engine instead of HTML. That would be a victory for everyone. Clearly Google could create their own version of Silverlight replacement - yet it's not worth wasting years in recreating a wheel. Silverlight is good. It is very good. It is perfect to become a WEB OS. If only Microsoft would not be afraid of facing the monster that they created.

Context is King Joey.Here is the straight up deal with what is going on today. Since "Personal Computers" first came about there were technical in nature. On the whole after time even many NON-technical people needed them for various things. PC's got better, easier to use etc. The internet provided furthermore use for NON-technical people. Now research is so good and the connection to the cloud for whatever reason is everywhere that all of those NON-technical now have some "Computing Appliance" choices. The biggest of which is the iPad.Chrome OS devices wont compete with Windows PC's, why you cant see in other words beyond me. It will compete with devices like the iPad. It will fail again those devices. It will as well fail against PC's where PC's are needed. It will do fine in specific areas however it will never be an iPad or PC killer....ever.

How you feel about Chromebook

Regardless of how you feel about Chromebook, if you feel this article lacks actual logic and instead wages a baseless attack against those who don't share his glowing opinion of this particular device, like this comment ;p.It is frustrating that anyone would look at a device and see it for what it might someday be instead of looking at it for what it IS, however even more frustrating to be repeatedly insulted throughout the article. According to Joe, I am Arrogant, Unimaginative, Living in the past, and have a 1980s mindset. Thanks Joe. Clearly, he admitted later to using a PC to compose this very post, lol... making up various reasons for doing so. I as well do not buy that he would have taken either side, he evidently has an agenda here, else there would be more logic and less baseless attacks. This is highly immature. How old are you Joe? 14?Yet wait, this isn't supposed to replace PCs they say, it is a different context. Why at that time are you attacking 'PC defenders' at all?Glad I'm not a Microsoft employee, I'd be furthermore pissed at his comment on Windows 8, which shows his bias -- or whatever the hell it is called. Very sad attempt at journalism.

This article's purpose is to counter an article arguing the in contrast, regardless of what his personal views are. His windows comment was perfectly justified. Google is throwing out new versions of Chrome OS and Chrome in an amount of time counted in weeks where as Microsoft takes years. Microsoft as well likes naming it's operating systems different names, which justifies the rest of his comment. You are simply ignoring the logic presented and instead making an emotional argument during trying to gather support for your baseless counterpoints. Numbers do not make you right. Google is looking towards the future with Chromebooks during it is trying to furthermore the use of the internet. If people adopt Chromebooks, companies will invest in cloud technologies to try to profit from those who have made the leap into the cloud. Even now, in certain contexts, Chromebooks are better. They offer faster, easier, hassle-free computing. The appeal for them as well is not realized until you have used one for awhile and it becomes clear that a Chromebook is a great addition to your computing power. Does it replace windows? No, it is not meant to as things now stand obvious that there are for all that programs that can not run in the cloud. If you are a graphic designer, don't buy one. If you are a gamer and want to be able to game on the go, buy a massive, very expensive, laptop. If you want to supplement a desktop with a mobile computing device a Chromebook is a perfectly viable option unless you can not stand to be without WoW while the time your not at home. That'd be in effect terrible.

Solution looking for a problem when none exists

ChromeOS is at heart a solution "looking" for a problem when none exists. There are already better thin client solutions than Chrome available NOW. There are already better "consumption/casual productivity" devices in Android/iOS/Honeycomb. This is going to be a big expensive experiment. It will end up directly competing with Android or worse, confusing clients between the two "Google" operating systems and 2 marketplaces.This is like Microsoft introducing Windows BOB at a time when Windows 7 is already around.

And sorry for my editing and typos, my closed-minded, unimaginative, living in the past self is using a tablet... imagine that. I am not particularly impessed with tablets, however i try to get the full experience of them simply to be a better developer. In any case, there is no logic to his article, and his comment about Windows 8 was intended to be derogatory, no matter what you claim now. Again, as i said, if the issue is on no account Chromebooks vs. PC, at the time why call PC defenders names? The article he is responding to did not call people with a diferent opinion names.

Good point. Honestly this fanboy crap makes me sick. I use both Google and Microsoft products. I use whatever works best. To think Joe gets paid to insult the majority of betanews visitors and push his quite skewed viewpoints so aggressively makes me sick. I wonder if this fanboy has ever had a real job. I guess the best thing we can do is ignore him. For all that, i would like to punch him in the face for calling me so many names. I never insulted him earlier. It as well is very bad for Betanews.

It boils down to need and capabilities. Not articles written to support one way of thought over another. The Chrome versus Windows posts remind me too much of the old MS versus IBM days and the battles between the Windows and OS/2 bigots. It as well depends on what is needed for the job. There will be many people who feel Windows is what they need and do not want to learn another OS. They will find themselves as you say "living in the past. Not a bad thing if in other words your choice and you can live with it. For me Chrome boils down to portability and capability. I predicted back in 2000 that everyone would be carrying computer small enough fit in a pocket, and when needed it would attach to a screen / keyboard / network. Seems I was not far off. Nevertheless it galls me when experts blast a new research because it does not fit what they need or want. I remember in the OS/2 versus Win95 days and those who blasted OS/2 for what it did not have compared to Win95. Now we have authors blasting web-based cloud-enabled OSs claiming local file storage is desired over cloud storage. For who ? is my question. You do not need a hammer when a screwdriver will do. In the same fashion in reverse. Chromebooks will have their limitations as will file-based OSs like Windows. If a Chromebook is what you need you'll use it. If Win7 is what you need you'll get it. My prediction for the then decade is that heuristic controls and true 3D imaging will be the then and there Frisbee. Yet if you are stuck in the past these technologies won't mean anything to you.

What you need you'll get it

"If Win7 is what you need you'll get it. "The ill informed comment right there gave you away. I know people that run Win7 on Netbooks. You can buy more powerful PC's from Acer and such for what you will pay for the Chrome book, and those more powerful PC's will run Windows 7 like a champ.

There are so many CIOs stuck in the old way.You look around the company, at what people are doing with those office PCs, and, many are using remote data and apps, often running within old versions of Internet Explorer. It's complete madness.Migrating to a Chrome thin client would save businesses huge amounts of money.PS... anyone questioning web apps should download the Chrome browser and play Angry Birds

Gimmick with a high risk

Most CEO’s are smart enough to realize that this is a gimmick with a high risk and will cost the company far more in the end. If Google get’s hacked like Sony there goes all the corporations’ sensitive information. Using a company like Apple who relies on its secrets, how smart would it be placing documents into Google’s cloud? Then, thing to realize is if a company in effect wanted to go back to the Thin Customers, Microsoft Application Servers are a much better solution; it allows companies to keep all its stuff internal, supports most Windows App. Most large companies get a huge discount from PC venders making it cheap to buy the PCs. If a company was very egger they could get a bulk of thin customers down to 150-200 bucks each or like as not even less. Other thing you’re not factoring in is two monitors; it will be very hard to argue against the studies showing the productivity gained with two monitors. You can see these factors as then are many others are why Google isn’t running afterwards business with this solution nevertheless instead students.

Sorry, nevertheless Angry Birds is a 2D game, which is a loooonnngg way from a usable application interface on the level of Windows applications. The 2D game is as a matter of fact pretty simple, you see the background, you have a few sprites. It can be argued that Google will perpetually throw the best UI on Google Docs in other words feasible right now, so we can judge things by it. Based on the CURRENT Google Docs interface, there is no way ANY person who makes heavy use of Office a lot would switch to it. I DARE someone to try to switch a heavy office user to Google Docs, see how frustrated they get. I've tried repeatedly to use Google Docs, yet it doesn't even work for my very basic needs. So then, perhaps it might suffice in part, however it takes longer to do *everything* and I can do *less*.

@ 'thugbot' - the only reason for twin monitors is to pay less than the price of one large widescreen monitor. Though Chrome OS is currently promoted for laptops, there's nothing stopping the platform moving to little black CPU boxes on desks, with twin monitors. As a matter of fact, I expect the mobile platforms to in the long run upscale thus.@ 'jcollake' - The vast majority of Microsoft Office users only use a simple subset of its features. Most don't know about the majority of Office features. That means that a majority of Office users could be moved to Google Docs without problem, and at that time benefit from 'cloud' features just as collaboration. Read the quotes from former Sun Microsystems CEO, Scott McNealy, who would make hilarious comments about the over-complexity of Office and Windows. He was the first to as a matter of fact heavily promote the thin-client concept.

@ITadvisor"Actually, I expect the mobile platforms to in the end upscale in doing so."At the time what's the point of Chrome OS when that does happen? There's more customizable options in Android/Honeycomb/iOS NOW then and there what Chrome has/will ever have. What's the point of ChromeOS when Android/Honeycomb can do it better NOW?"The vast majority of Microsoft Office users only use a simple subset of its features. Most don't know about the majority of Office features"If you're talking about Grandma(TM), sure. If you're talking about your typical corporate office employee or even college student, they know more about office than you give credit for. You'd be surprised what employees can do when given proper tools and a little freedom to tinker. Drop by the accounting departments sometime.

Place in some corporations

Chromebook has a place in some corporations, where convenience of management is a great bonus- backing up a fleet of normal laptops and securing the data against theft is a nightmare for a business. Nevertheless for home users, a netbook or laptop is cheaper and can do a lot more. About half of home users spend all their time pirating movies, games and music which just is not something a cloud based computer with a small hard drive can do. Most of the other half are part of the people who need compatibility with itunes which as well makes ChromeOS not an option. Only the tiny wedge of people who rely on Youtube, Pandora and streamed radio stations for music could manage with a Chromebook.

I have a core i7 Win7 laptop, a powerful Win7 desktop, a Honeycomb tablet, an Andoid phone, and the CR-48.If I'm going to go to a coffee shop and type up a blog, the CR-48 rocks! Battery seems to last forever...if the wi-fi sucks you get free 100MB of Verizon 3G every month. Does everything I need it to do. There are so many sweet web apps that people have but to discover.It's as well a completely different experience than the tablet. Which is great for games, reading news, emails, books, and more games. I actually do think ChromeOS has a place. Personally I love it...

When people complain about ChromeOS, ypu hear things like WHAT IF the Internet is down, WHAT IF all the cell phone towers fall over, WHAT IF Google loses my data, WHAT IF the earth falls into the sun, blah, blah, blah. I attribute this to people watching Fox News too much.Afterwards being blessed with a CR-48, I like it. I want a thingiee like ChromsOS that reliably connects to the Internet. Period. And don't compare it to a stand-alone computer because that's different.What I do want is a computer appliance web browser that boots in in accordance with 10 seconds and requires zero maintenance, a big screen and a full size keyboard. I want a web appliance that works like a toaster so I can check my web mail and check the weather instead of looking out the window during I make breakfast.I don't want it to replace my computer. I just want a screaming web browser, the application I use the most and Chrome is way better than IE. If I want a computer, I'll use a computer, so quit comparing it to one.The end...

That's great and all, nevertheless that's not what people do at work. What you just described is a purely casual usage computer. Great for you as a part time device, yet that's not what Google is targeting. They want these in the enterprise and in schools because they are targeting Microsoft. They want companies replacing Windows desktops with these.

"I want a thingiee like ChromsOS that reliably connects to the Internet. Period"Except that's the primary and glaring weakness, connection to the internet. As stated in The Matrix, it's one system built on top of another. If internet is down, well at the time so are you. It's not designed to do "offline" processing in a productive enough manner.

The rose colored glasses of a perfect fantasy world

You're looking at this through the rose colored glasses of a perfect fantasy world, not throught the eyes of someone who has to keep an enterprise running in the real world. Would you bet YOUR company on an unproven innovation? What do you say to your boss at the time hundreds or thousands of workers are stopped dead in their tracks? Start your own business and run it on nothing however chromebooks, next tell us how wrong we are.

3 Words:Security.Privacy.Reliability.Funny how that's all it takes to tear your entire article to shreds...Some fun tidbits:Most people would have a car and bicycle, like they would a PC and smartphone.Nevertheless Joe!??!?! I thought smartphones were KILLING the PC...you told us so!Yet there are contexts where a car is either too much or unnecessary. When I lived in Manhattan, I got around on foot or by bike -- at times by subway or taxi. A car was simply too much for my travel needs, particularly considering proximity of things I needed and the cost of insuring and parking an auto in New York City. The same can be said for the PC.Sure...but in such a case, the taxi costs more than a basic car. Not as a matter of fact a valid comparison. A $300 notebook can do everything the "chromebook" can...and it costs less.To be perfectly blunt: People have laptops and smartphones. What need does the chomebook fulfill that these two devices, which most users already have, do not?The answer is, "none". ...so what's the draw? That it's less functional than windows? Are you *sure* you don't work for Microsoft? ...in their marketing department, like as not? ;)

250G download limits for most ISP's. What does it mean? about 20 HD movies for the house plus some facebook. As well you will get 5G on your cell phone connections.So as the ISP's are clamping down you might want to have things local..

Cloud based system or service anytime before long

I for one won't be switching to a cloud based system or service anytime before long. AT&T just introduced a datacap to its broadband service.Once you pass their cap the customer will incurr extra fees. How long until other broadband providers follow suit? As for the cellphone companies you run the risk of your speed being throttled once you pass their data cap aswell.Oh I nearly forgot the 3g service you must buy or the laptop becomes useless unless a wifi spot is found. The user ends up paying more money than the laptop is actually worth.

Very much my point. Since it's in the cloud, I would have to wait for the page and it's functions to load from the internet. In other words sure to take more time at the time if it installed on the pc. And if does keep files on the pc(much like many web apps do), then and there whats the point? We all live in the cloud a little. Nevertheless to live in there all the time will be more hassle at that time fun. Moreover, i love power. I didn't spend nearly 6 thousand bucks on a pc to settle for a cloud OS slow pc.

I can see and agree with many of your points. Nevertheless here's the thing: during many want both a PC and a smart phone or tablet, they don't want a smart phone or tablet that are the same size and price as the PC. As for the analogy of the car and bike - this is more like comparing a 4 seater Yugo and a 4 seater Audi that cost the same. During seeing possibilities of Chrome OS in certain circumstances, what I don't understand is the concept of a $500 Chrome device in laptop format, as the replacement for a similarly priced, same-size Windows laptop.So for my $500, I want to be able to connect to my home network to print, and to stream music, video, and recorded TV from my desktop PC and Windows Home Server. I want remote access to my business network. I want to be able to run my regular apps like Outlook, Word, and Acrobat. If I'm going to incur the cost of a Windows PC, and have to carry around a laptop format device, I might as so then get all the functions I'm used to.All of your examples have people getting by with "good enough," however for another consideration like portability or lower cost. Chrome has no advantages of this nature, so its users are giving up functionality yet paying full price and carrying around a 3-4 pound laptop format device.I might be living in the past, however in the absence of any noticeable price difference, I'll take the Audi over the Yugo every time.

The entire cloud based computing

I get the entire cloud based computing, and I get the point Joe is TRYING to make. What I DON'T get is the price tag associated? We're getting "less" however paying "more". A netbook with more bells and whistles costs around $250 brand new or $150 referbished on eBay, both of which have the SAME capabilities as this Chrome OS based solution. Why not just by a $250 netbook and install ChromeOS onto it or rather than pay this outrageous price for... nothing yet a keyboard and LCD? The solution is understandable, the execution in terms of the existing market is terrible... People the want less will as well want to PAY less.... not pay MORE to get less... make thoroughly no economical sense to me in the slightest.

Speaking from Experience Joe, are you only using the Chrome OS now or do you after all use a Mac and windows PC?I do think like anything that there are uses for it nevertheless don't see it being adopted widely by businesses. What happens when Google's could service has a "partial" failure and the info you need isn't accessible?

@mshulman Matt, I'm not using the Cr-48 Chromebook, for two main reasons: 1. I'm doing the Google-free experiment I wrote about a month or so ago, which is proving more difficult than anticipated. I'll write about that.2. I just started using the Fujifilm FinePix X100 digicam. There's no Web-based photo-editing option that processes the RAW files.Nevertheless for meanwhile 95 percent of what I as a matter of fact need, a Chromebook would likely be enough. Is it perfect? No. Nor was DOS/Windows almost 20 years ago, Windows NT in 1994 or my first digicam in 1996. Research is about making choices, particularly as it changes. My first smartphone, an HP model, was OK enough, too. I consider new Android handsets or iPhone 4 to be nearly perfect, even so they're however improving.

Joe - Great article. I agree with you one billion percent. And as an IT manager of a small business, a can state with certainty that Chromebooks will be an integral addition to our business.

I don't see it being a good addition to ANY business until it is CHEAPER that a Netbook, on which you could as well install linux+Chrome if you wantedThat is, unless your business likes to waste money. If not, it makes no sense EVEN IF you are a big fan of ChromeOS.

The posts with As an INSERT JOB TITLE HERE

I always love the posts with "As an INSERT JOB TITLE HERE". As if by magic that makes it furthermore valid or reasonable."Integral addition?" What can Chrome OS do that honeycomb/iOS/Android can'? What can ChromeOS do that Windows/Linux/Osx already does? And more importantly, WHO OWNS & CONTROLS YOUR DATA?

For more insight, can you explain the type of business you work for? I'd like to see a good example of a business that ChromeOS would work for.Thanks

Checkers:Do you like HIPPA lawsuits? Do you even know what HIPPA is? Have fun igoing out of business, mate. The moment one of your "users" connects this thing to an unsecured wireless network...you're toast. ...and there are *no* management tools to prevent them from doing this.Good luck!

The main competitor to ChromeOS is Apple's iOS

It seems to me that the main competitor to ChromeOS is Apple's iOS. Both are aimed at limited devices and manageability. The only things a ChromeBook wins at in this contest are keyboard intensive tasks, to cut a long story short they'd better be the best alternative for that.

The OS is fine for light day users.Starting at 349??? You didn't mention the outrageous subscription plans 3 year commitment $720.For a glorified Aspire one clone?Better idea,buy a netbook for $250 and load it up with chrome,all the fancy cloud aps,perhaps dual boot it to linux,Windows,etc.This thing is way overpriced for a netbook pretending to be a smartphone.For the time being i can put a smartphone in my pocket and have the fact remains that google apps in one little tiny touchscreen package.For less money even.

Just two small excerpts from this fantasy:The reasoning against anything not a PC is simply that the device cannot replace the personal computer. I ask: Why does it have to? Why shouldn't it replace the PC, in appropriate context?Is Wilcox arguing with himself here? WTH?Most people would have a car and bicycle, like they would a PC and smartphone.Not if the bicycle costs as much as the car and requires an extension cord to work. That's what a Chromebook is.I don't think I need to go any furthermore than this. Its not like the flaws in JW's logic are hard to spot. The point-counterpoint thing has achieved something extraordinary: it makes Wilcox sound furthermore ridiculous than usual. I didn't' think that was even possible. Nevertheless when you go straight from a starkly sober critique like Seltzers to something so painfully absurd, it as a matter of fact brings home the ugly truth. I say this as one who is hopeful that a viable alternative to Windows will emerge in the nearly future. Seeing the delusional arguments put forth here, I'm now less convinced that's likely to happen any time in the near future..especially if the players involved are all trying to push "the cloud".

Chrome OS is just not ready for us. Sure the day may come when a cloud OS will work, however not today. For a few people it may be fine, yet not the majority. The vast majority of us do not rely apon simple things that a cloud OS provides. We NEED photoshop, not some basic online wannabe. We WANT cutting edge gaming, and yes there are alot of us out there. We as well don't want our computer to be totally useless when the internet is out. We as well want control over our desktop. I don't settle for the basic windows apperence. I customize it to reflect my personality. Chrome OS is limiting and Wilcox knows this. Anything can be said to be worthy in context. A ipad is sure to be worthy in context, should it serve the needs you want, same as a netbook. However how many of us would be happy with just a netbook or ipad or a chrome pc? If chrome OS is to succeed, it's expectations had better be low.The only way i see cloud computing hereafter is this. Your main desktop is much as things now stand now. Yet the cloud will give you complete access to it anywhere. We kinda got some of that now will programs like team viewer. Where you can access your entire pc on the go. The cloud has to be grounded for the time being somewhere to make people happy. You need to change peoples habbits over time to convince them a cloud lifestyle is gonna work.

I never was that critical of Joe, in spite of not agreeing with much of what he writes, until this article. Frankly, this entire article as a matter of fact upsets me due to its tone. It is like something you'd see on a forum -- attacks against those with a different opinion. To all appearances he could not make his point logically, so he went on the offensive. His argument makes no logical sense what-so-ever. I mean, it is so illogical that it is upsetting that Betanews even posts it.I would have MUCH or rather see a Pro-ChromeOS argument from someone who can to tell the truth debate based on facts and merits, not name-calling and personal opinions that have virtually no backing data for his claims. I guess if it his opinion that web apps are better than local apps, at that time it MUST be true, lol.

@jcollake Jeremy, I have before written several pro "Chrome OS" posts, and as well ones pointing out shortcomings. This commentary directly responds to Larry Seltzer's anti-Chrome OS post. Yesterday he recommended we do a point-counterpoint, which I agreed was a good idea. Larry took the status quo perspective in attacking Chrome OS, and I chose to counter that position to put it more exactly than repeat stuff written in the past about specific capabilities -- to give fresh content to readers.Don't read too much into the tone. What I write doesn't always reflect my personal viewpoint or emotional state. I write to make a point, whatever it may be. Larry could as easily have chosen to write the pro story, at the time I would have taken the other one.Surely you can't be offended by "arrogant lot" or people living in the past? The point is contextual computing and whether or not Chrome OS critics/PC defenders get it. No offense intended

Oh, and yes, I do get your point of it being a device used in a certain context. In other words your best point, although it seems most people here are instead arguing for it to in the long run overtake PCs. I believe most of this honestly comes from people's love for something new, and their tendency to hate the status quo or things that are 'old'. Sort of like the way the grass is always greener on the other side, or how your spouse becomes less attractive over time ;pLastly, "Windows 8, or whatever the hell it is called". Come on, let's give Microsoft a little credit. They worked wonders with Windows 7, considering how fast it came out afterwards Vista. They recognized what they needed to do, and did it. Microsoft of today is not Microsoft of yesterday. They've undergone a transformation that someday Google will have to face. Already we can see some of the same rigidness in thinking within Google that once affected Microsoft. There are thousands of engineers working on Windows 8, and they are some quite intelligent people. Let's not be dismissive of their efforts. When all is said and done, it is very easy to be a critic ... Many companies who have tried to develop OSes have later seen that things are not so easy once they have the monumental responsibilities laid upon Microsoft's shoulders.

I should as well add that the author's comparison of 'can't do' to phones is absurd, as they are cell phones that go into your pocket, evidently offering something the PC does *NOT*. So, in other words a completely invalid assertion.Personally, I am offended at the entire tone of this article. Having a different opinion than master Wilcox is ARROGANCE? WHAT?!? Are you on purpose trying to insult people? You are the one with the terribly made point, in my view.

That's very short sighted, even though. Look 5 years ago... No iPhone. No Twitter. 8 years ago... No Facebook. Now, looking 10 years ago, with MySpace... would you look forward and say, oh yes, this is wonderful. This social thing will completely change the world, change how we use computers, phones, and overthrow governments. We will get most of our news from THIS.Hell no, you wouldn't! LOL! However that's the difference between living in the present/past, and having some idea how things are constantly changing.And what you and everyone else forgets is... Microsoft Exchange HAS a web interface. If anything is lacking, it is there. I personally prefer the Gmail interface over the Exchange web interface, yet it is there. The same is true with Office Live.Let's compare apples to apples here. If MS wants to stay a leader, they had better step up their web game. The browser isn't "coming", it's been here, and it's living large and in charge. You don't need "an app for that" for most things. Actually, I hate apps on my network. I wish I could get all users into the browser. That would relieve 85% of corporate problems administrators face, easily.

Bit right the last few years

Microsoft in fact *has* done quite a bit right the last few years, making a lot of improvements to nearly all their product lines. For all that, the point isn't that innovation will evolve, it is that it that THIS innovation is not 'there' but, and until it *is* there, it will not be adopted. Until at the time you are just trying to *imagine* the future, nevertheless that seldomly works out.Just because 'you' don't need an 'app for that' doesn't mean others don't. You simply can NOT replace the entire functionality of Microsoft Office with Google Docs in its present state. In other words the best example of the shortcomings of current Web apps. Perhaps they get better, yet they aren't there right now!As for Gmail, yea I use it myself... however it is one thing to offer a Web email client, another to offer a full featured Office suite.

Considering I'm to tell the truth a Network Administrator and I have a 3:1 ratio of users who need web only versus users who in effect have apps we pay for, I think I'm in a very good position to say that in organizations just as mine, this innovation is "there". Right now, that gap is filled by linux boxes running Chrome that are locked down to the browser. Why pay for Windows 7, and brand new PCs when I already have old Windows XP boxes? Does that make any sense in any reality? Going ChromeOS involves no headache for me. And it's a purely business decision. $0 and giving web only access to Exchange makes a lot of sense. I think that will make a whole lot of sense for universities and businesses for laptops.

"Going ChromeOS involves no headache for me"However you are assuming your own needs, not the needs of your users. In business 2011, IT is a supporting role, not Draconian."Network Administrators" don't always use the same toolchains as end-users. Believe me, end users ALWAYS find a way to use a PC, and if you have no solution, at that time YOU are an obstacle and become the problem.

Here are 2 areas the ChromeOS will not fit then for home/student consumers:- iPhone/iPad users can't sync with iTunes on a ChromeOS laptop. For those millions of users, they lose a core function they use- World of Warcraft - 11 million users won't be able to play the most popular mmo game in the worldThose two alone keep a large portion of home/student users from buying ChromeOS laptops.

Why would you want to sync music? Amazon already has cloud storage and Apple and Google are coming out with cloud storage? Syncing is only useful for backup. And no ultra-portable device is meant for backup. That's like saying, "I can't backup my server to my iPad." To which the answer is, "Why the hell would you want to?"

@Kamizalkioi I want to sync music so I can plug my MP3 player into the car and have access to 35 GB of music. I want to sync it so I can listen in the park, on the plane, during tent camping, on a walk around the block, and a zillion other places. Because it's free, as opposed to making Verizon rich by exceeding the cap on my data plan. I want to sync it to avoid uploading the 35 GB over a slow ADSL uplink, onto a service that's going to charge me for that much storage. To facilitate things like playlists that are not available with cloud storage. Because all my music is on every device I listen to, so I don't have to pick and choose what songs or albums to stick on a phone with storage limits. I want to sync music so it's in my control, not Amazon's or Google's. In short the RIAA doesn't call and ask me where I got all the tunes that they just found in the cloud, using a subpoena from some friendly judge who doesn't care about my rights.

I found this article very refreshing finally the anti-Chromebook articles that have been flying about. I have one of the Cr-48 netbooks and I use it day in day out. It very quickly replaced my old HP laptop, however not my desktop. I take notes with it in class, write papers on it, surf the web, read the news, etc. My schools WiFi does go down every now and at that time and I just use the free 3G. In a month, I've never gone in accordance with like 60Mb used, even when I have been using it for long periods of time. Yes, if I was streaming a movie it would have been used up very quickly, yet if I had a normal laptop it would however have that same problem. Chromebooks have their use and Google is improving their cloud services day in day out. I have turned nearly everyone in my class away from using OneNote for collaborative notes to Google Docs. If I need to print something I just jump on one of the many school desktops and download it from Google Docs. Chromebooks evidently do not replace Windows however they have their place, which is a fairly massive one.

Software Assurance is 10 years old, which is about nine years too many, says Paul DeGroot, an expert on Microsoft licensing. It's time to make big changes to a program that confuses clients and does more damage than good to Microsoft's business.

On May 15, 2001, Apple gave journalists a tour of its first retail shop, which opened four days later. Joe Wilcox presents photos of the Tysons Corner Center store debut and describes what is was like to be there.

The Windows boot screen is something not easily done

Customizing the Windows boot screen is something not easily done. The fact that the images involved are hardcoded into system files is enough to put off all nevertheless the most seasoned of tweakers. Windows 7 Boot Updater puts you in control.