Chrome OS strikes me as not really a new concept at all, but just of a WAN version of 'thin client' computing on a LAN, which was supposed to be the Next Big Thing years ago but has found only limited success. Basically a dumb terminal (= browser) with everything - files, programs, etc. - residing on a central server (= the cloud).

Well, the most of the same problems and limitations of thin clients apply to Chrome OS. Things like...
a. Privacy, security or the Big Brother factor.
b. Reliability. Server down? 'Net down? Cloud services down? Screwed, can't do squat.
c. Adaptability and customization. You're limited to what the cloud offers. No installing whatever and tweaking to suit. Conformity in computing.

Someday Chrome OS or something like it may be a realistic option. IMHO that's many years away. And then only if net neutrality can be maintained and ISPs don't start charging an arm & a leg per GB. Total dependence on heavy 'net usage to do or access anything would give ISPs almost unlimited power to control - well, almost everything. Come to think of it, they have almost that much power now....yowwwza! Scary....

Indeed, very good points. Chrome OS is not a new concept per say, but a novel implementation. But directly to your ponts:

a. It seems with the popularity of services like Google Docs, Gmail, and many, many others, individuals are more less worried about the potential privacy than they feel about the benefits of this convenience.

b. This is also somewhat less of a concern with always improving services, and redundancy in many cases (mobile data, and wired). Once upon a time one could have said the very same about electricity, certainly when it goes out, we're at a stand still. I would be interested to know the broadband reliability based on area.

Another point worth consideration is the offline capabilities of HTML 5 which can be implemented by developers to provide offline usage. How much this feature will be used remains to be seen!

c. This is a power-user feature, but I suspect that Chrome OS is positioned towards the lay person. However, having a service in the 'cloud' doesn't necessary imply little customizability; it all depends on the service. Again, there exists the possibility that power-users can install their own home-servers and serve secure apps.

I think that Chrome OS is still a little early in that there are few apps, but the Google Chrome App store, not only puts apps in a central location for discovery, it monetizes them and provides developer incentive. The reach of the web, the standardization of the web, the extreme proliferation of web servers, and the inclusion of the Chrome App Store, are all features worth notation when comparing this to the thin client concept of old.

I personally believe that this is the future. Ask any regular user what they do on their computer, and they'll generally remark: web surfing, word-processing, music listening, and possibly movie watching. The web can do all of these things, and Chrome OS will push these services and more directly into the users awareness.

If I was confident that I could run Ubuntu from a centralized server, and have access to its apps via a web interface, I would quickly hop on Chrome OS, and get a reasonably powerful central home computer. Performance is my only concern as this sounds very VNC-ish. Of course, if popular projects port to NaCl, I wouldn't hesitate. Having access to my apps via a cheap, thin laptop with excellent battery life, and a convenient tablet, is a very compelling idea.

I'm very confident in one thing, though: Microsoft is fsck'd.

How about multiplayer games where the users share the one keyboard (ie player one gets WASD/left and player two gets the arrow keys/right and vice versa)?
Well to be honest there are more games that use the arrow keys than WASD but these are mini-games (mostly flashed based). But then again you would expect this OS to basically play all flash games but not most of the modern games.
Besides games are increasingly allowing users to set there own keys, so choice is always a blessing.

But I totally agree with CC, it seems better to stick with UNR and just install Chrome browser. I can't wait to test MeeGo v1.2 for netbooks (hopefully they will include a customizable user interface and improve OGL performance), that would be sweet with Chrome!

Just as Kangal hinted towards, it's worth noting that using the web as a platform also levels the playing field. For example, a Windows machine would be just as effective as an Android Machine which would be just as effective as a MeeGo machine. In other words, just as with the web currently, the underlying OS matters less and less for similar degrees of functionality. Meanwhile, technologies like NaCl ensure that we can maintain the diversity of development language and environment to target this new platform, and that the environment will exist beyond the chrome browser!

For companies, this increases competition (yes, I understand the argument business-problems with device commoditization (is that a word?)), but the consumer benefits in the end, and companies must always innovate and execute to maintain profitability anyhow.

But it's not going to happen overnight -- not by a long shot. Still, it's an interesting spin on traditional OSs and application distribution that has some real perks.

Apparently its launching today.

Google just dropped a mega-bomb on stage with Chrome and Chrome OS. You can view the liveblog via Engadget:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/07/l...ined&refresh=0

This is so full of win, I don't know where to begin.

Awesome. Locked down from the get go. Well I suppose that's one way to handle security: Treat the user as the enemy and proceed accordingly.

So far I'm not sure what's supposed to be so impressive about Chrome OS. I mean, yeah, it boots an alternative OS. But what can you really do with it that you can't do now with a browser and Linux or even Windoze? Web apps - check. Cloud storage - check. Webmail, websurfing - check, check. Lightweight, minimal OS - load Puppy Linux or something, check.

So tell me what I'm too dim to see. What's the advantage of using a web-dependent crippled OS over a fully-capable with-or-without web real OS, especially given the cost, size and capabilities of hardware available now or in the near future? I have 48Gb of storage and a phone/camera/multimedia player/computer running real Linux in my pocket right now. It will do a lot with no connection to anything. If I wanna store stuff in the cloud, it will.

So why should I reduce that - or my CentOS desktop either - to a web-dependent notebook with a goofy keyboard running a semi-functional Chrome OS?

I'm not sure if that was a sarcastic reply but:

Considering how informed most users are about computer security, the measures Google have taken are a step in the right direction. I'm referring of course the the layers of security baked into Chrome OS.

Lifehacker has some posts that break down Chrome and Chrome OS features:
http://lifehacker.com/5708470/what-t...ogle-chrome-os
http://lifehacker.com/5708457/google...updates-chrome