Linked by David Adams on Mon 30th Nov 2009 17:44 UTC, submitted by samw
Window Managers 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.
Order by: Score:
BigBentheAussie
Member since:
2008-03-29

With Chrome frame taking over the IE renderer, I really should have seen this coming.
Funny!!!

Reply Score: 2

LiteStep
by sryo on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:52 UTC
sryo
Member since:
2007-01-03

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

Reply Score: 1

RE: LiteStep
by cerbie on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:59 UTC in reply to "LiteStep"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

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

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: LiteStep
by sryo on Mon 30th Nov 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: LiteStep"
sryo Member since:
2007-01-03

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.

Reply Score: 1

Great idea
by FunkyELF on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:59 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 30th Nov 2009 19:04 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

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.

Reply Score: 2

It's called kiosking
by nt_jerkface on Mon 30th Nov 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.

Reply Score: 9

RE: It's called kiosking
by FunkyELF on Tue 1st Dec 2009 16:44 UTC in reply to "It's called kiosking"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

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?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's called kiosking
by WereCatf on Tue 1st Dec 2009 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE: It's called kiosking"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.

Reply Score: 2

This is one of the reasons...
by Moochman on Mon 30th Nov 2009 19:06 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is one of the reasons...
by sorpigal on Tue 1st Dec 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "This is one of the reasons..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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?

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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.

Reply Score: 2

BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

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.

Reply Score: 2

And this is different from ...
by phoenix on Mon 30th Nov 2009 19:16 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

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.

Reply Score: 5

Yawn
by sorpigal on Tue 1st Dec 2009 13:22 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yawn
by google_ninja on Thu 3rd Dec 2009 20:41 UTC in reply to "Yawn"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

what about the boot time of 3 seconds?

Reply Score: 2