Submitted by An effort to turn a normal windows installation into a chrome OS like operating system has come to fruition with its first release. The complete shell replacement that is available here stops the default desktop loading at boot time and instead replaces it with Google’s Chrome browser (allowing the user to load the normal desktop later). Standby to browser times of 3 seconds have been reported.
With Chrome frame taking over the IE renderer, I really should have seen this coming.
Funny!!!
I’m using a LiteStep theme in my current desktoip to mimic ChromeOS (might upload it to http://www.ls-lab.com.ar during the week).
Edited 2009-11-30 19:11 UTC
Did a good embeddable web browser module get made, while I’ve been drinking the FOSS OS Koolaid, or is fancy scripting of apps the order of the day?
Edited 2009-11-30 19:01 UTC
Not really, been trying to do a wrapper for ChromeFrame and Oborzevatel, but it’s been getting harder every day.
So yeah, it’s as hacky and involves too much scripting as any average LS theme.
I could actually envision using something like this.
My XPS1530 had something called Dell Media direct where it didn’t load the whole OS, just enough to play movies and look at pictures. Who cares about that, people want internet, facebook, etc. That is what this shell replacement is.
Nobody wants to give up native applications. What a great idea. Didn’t RTFA yet but it would be nice if when you chose to boot into the full OS that your Chrome is left the same meaning tabs, state, sessions, etc.
Who would ever want to cripple his/her desktop down by cutting the whole desktop out and letting monopolistic organisation to take control of their browser?
That’s just beyond me. Looks like someone really wants to push his/her ideas into the world to earn more money. Well, It won’t work with me. In my opinion cloud is obsolete, insecure, slow and dumbed down way of using the internet.
It’s the latest trend in hacking.
Take a fully functioning computer and hack it down to a browser.
Hacking more functionality out of devices is so 1998.
I’m going to break my iphone later so I can ban myself from using local apps.
That sounds like a great idea… boot bare bones, just enough to make phone calls. I bet it would boot in 2 seconds.
Then later on, when you need to, you can initiate booting the rest of the OS and access local applications.
Why should you have to wait 15 seconds to boot your phone to make a phone call?
Why should you wait more than 3 seconds to use the internet on your netbook?
Why should you have to wait 15 seconds to boot your phone to make a phone call?
Why should you need to turn your phone on and off so often that such a thing is a hassle? Most phones last for 3-5 days without a single recharge, and you can just recharge them without turning them off, too.
ChromeOS will fail. Once people realize that they can have the benefits of ChromeOS *and* have Windows, a lot of the attractiveness of ChromeOS goes away.
Yes, ChromeOS “doesn’t need updates” and is “more secure”, but these features aren’t that visible to the average user. The one selling point that was visible, boot time, has now been blown out of the water, and the implementation is actually better than any of the Linux-based quick-boot BIOS schemes out there right now, since it uses Windows and guarantees compatibility with any and all plug-ins.
The only way ChromeOS can make a showing is if the hardware is just unbelievably cheap–like, on the verge of free. Even then, though, the poor hardware will mean unappealingly sluggish web apps and Flash, which will limit the uptake, at least in relatively well-off societies where people can afford to spend a little more to get a full-blown netbook.
On a separate note, I’d be quite interested to see something like ChromeShell implemented for other browsers, too.
I thought the *point* of ChromeOS was that it gives you a web browser and internet access, portably, without the hassle of managing an OS, or the expense of buying a full laptop.
So why are you dismissing fast, cheap and simple? Aren’t those the entire selling point?
Fast, cheap, simple and *limited*.
I’m not objecting to the fast, cheap, simple philosophy. What I’m saying is that it’s possible without throwing the *options* that a real OS gives you out the window. Look at it this way: Given two netbooks in a store, same price, same screen size and speed, one with ChromeOS and one with ChromeOS *plus* local storage space and the ability to run fat-client Linux apps, which would you choose?
I am not the target demographic for this.
And, when I said “simple” I also meant “limited.” These are two sides of the same coin. It’s very hard to do more without being more complicated.
Interesting question here.
If I was looking at a NetBook for IM, e-book reading, movie/photo sharing and WebBrowsing along with the occasional on-line shopping, I would likely pick whatever makes sense pricewise. I would also pick without regards to a pre-established OS or applications and go for useability.
If I was looking at a NetBook for personal and professional use while on the road, I would have to remain within the confine of the Windows + Internet Explorer + Office combination.
I have not explored Chrome OS and may thus be completely off topic. However, if Chrome OS was my personal OS choice for non-work related stuff, and the NetBook was mine (not a corporate one), then I might consider using ChromeShell as a workable compromise.
If they were the same price, then the full linux one would be dead slow. The whole point of chromeOS is for a cheap, fast browser appliance.
We’ve been able to change the shell in Windows since the 3.1 days, how is this anything new? It’s one line in a text file, for crying out loud.
Shell replacements on Windows are far from new and have, generally, the ability to look like anything. So what?
You still have Windows underneath, with all of its usual problems and system requirements.
I just don’t see why you’d want the look of ChromeOS. It’s not there for its look.
what about the boot time of 3 seconds?