Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Sep 2008 20:55 UTC, submitted by Punktyras
Google With all the recent hype surrounding Google's Chrome, it's refreshing to see someone taking a few steps back and looking at the bigger picture. Superlatives were abound about Chrome (I personally really like it), but some people really took it overboard - take TechCrunch for instance: "Chrome is nothing less than a full on desktop operating system that will compete head on with Windows." Seeing my nationality, I know a tulip mania when I see one. So does Ted Dziuba.
Thread beginning with comment 329780
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The fallacy of the OS
by egarland on Tue 9th Sep 2008 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: The fallacy of the OS"
egarland
Member since:
2005-08-05

Consoles are a good example of a computer that runs without an operating system. I think the latest generation have operating systems (I don't own one) but if you look at the older systems like PS2 and cartridge machines they had 2 parts, a BIOS and a game, there was no OS to speak of.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kristalsoldier Member since:
2008-09-09

You mean like thin clients...?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: The fallacy of the OS
by egarland on Tue 9th Sep 2008 18:51 in reply to "RE[3]: The fallacy of the OS"
egarland Member since:
2005-08-05

No. I'm talking about game consoles. Nintendo, Playstation, Sega Genesis, etc. They bootstrap directly into the application. Sometimes there are common libraries used by the games and routines provided by the manufacturer but since they aren't common across all games and each game ships with its own possibly different version they can be considered part of the application, not an OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1