On PCWorld.com, I came across an article talking about the new OS that Google is developing, Chrome OS. Chrome OS will be a lightweight operating system meant to be used on netbooks. Its primary application will be the web browser, Google's Chrome, that was released during the second half of 2008.

The revolutionary approach to this OS is its emphasis on cloud computing. Rather than having applications and storage on the actual device, the user will have to rely on online applications and online storage for their computing needs. Cloud computing has only recently taken off in the personal user market. People are using online photo storage and sharing services like Flickr; online video publishing like Youtube, and even online document publishing and editing like Google Docs.

Cloud computing does have its benefits. For one thing, all data is stored centrally in "the cloud", which makes retrieval of data from multiple locations very easy to do. Another benefit is that there is less dependence on the performance of the device, since most of the actual processing is being done in "the cloud".

However, the major issue with Chrome OS, and cloud computing in general is that one needs to be connected to the Internet in order to utilize the device. For me, this goes against the whole portable computer you can take anywhere idea. For example, if you're on a plane, since most flights do not offer wireless internet, a "cloud computer" would be of no use. Similarly, if you're in an area of no internet connectivity, (I am including the cell networks in this as well, so this would happen somewhat rarely, I admit), your computer is of no use.

I think a balance needs to be struck, because cloud computing definitely has its benefits. One solution would be to backup the files stored on your computer online, and have them accessible to you from any Internet-enabled device. This would be a step forward in the right direction. There are many such services already, but if Google made an OS that made this seamless, then I think they would a definite winner for an OS. They should also make offline versions of their online applications (which is mentioned in the article), so that users will not have to switch applications when going from local access to cloud access and vice versa. Most of all, Chrome OS should shy away from the regular OS norms, (like a static desktop image, static icons), and should be more dynamic in nature (weather applets on desktop, news feeds, and most visited websites, for a start).

Article Source: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/182152/google_chrome_os_a_nice_place_to_visit_but
.html