FIVE BUCKS

As much as I'm currently playing: $0. Google is just one of the many free search engines i have in firefox, I dont plan on using their OS, just as I dont plan on using chrome, and for the same reason: i'm not a basic, noobish end-user who just wants to check my email and read articles on my netbook (dont own one) while sippin' on lattes. I need the add-ons and features of firefox and the ability to play games and such in a windows OS.

It depends--If Chrome OS were as advanced as Windows, I would be willing to pay a microsoft-like price tag. Unfortunately, Chrome will not be as advanced as other established operating systems; and it will not be compatible with most of the software I use. It is ideally suited for just the market it is going into: inexpensive, low-powered notebooks. It must be cheaper than OEM Windows Xp (about $20) so free is about right.

/Agrees.

Since when was giving out a free OS or search bar "new"? I really don't see how Chrome is anything special... Especially not compared to Ubuntu.

Anyone who does anything over check their facebook or sending tweets (both of which I would never do) won't get Google Chrome. That right there is my estimate of (maybe) 20% of PC users. The other 80% will be divided and simply won't get chrome because it's new and they don't know how to install it or don't need to waste their time installing a OS that will do the EXACT SAME THING AS ANY OTHER.

I really dislike the concept of paying for an OS. More often than not people pay for them behind the scenes in the price of a retail computer, or they pirate them. MS has actually taken a pretty soft stance on Windows piracy, as they understand how much of their business is based on market share, and a windows user is a windows user, legal or not. Apple gets props for only charging $50, but really, if you price out the parts in a Mac, you're paying a lot more for OSX than any version of Windows. Netbooks is a good place to start, but I'm interested to see how much they're able to scale it up.

I don't use gmail or chrome so google is all I use. Hence an answer of $0.00.

Would I pay for a google program? If they made something worthwhile I suppose, but right now we're not there.

If I was going to give an actual value, I'd say Google should pay me a small amount of money for all the adds they show me, and data they mine from me. I accept personal checks, PayPal, and direct wire transfers, Google.

I tend to be in the critic's seat of could-anything and web-based-whatever. The Internet breaks sometimes and I don't care how far we progress, that will simply never change. I want to own (not rent) the things I buy and I don't want to have to depend on outside services and networks much more than I already do.

I'm not opposed to getting excited about real innovation (like the anti-virus software that scans from the cloud-side and runs your files through 5 different products faster than your own system could run them through 2) but I think we're on a big wave of hype right now.

I don't think the late adopters have anything to worry about either. Cable TV and landlines may cost a little more, but we still have them (partially) because satellite TV goes out when it rains and VoIP goes down with the Internet.

Google already knows my full name, social security, bank account numbers, PayPal info, and all that... So, I figure they should have some money sitting in my account by the time I'm out of work. Right?

/discuss.

Where's my money, Google? Where's my money man?

Free o/s, i think not. This is like getting "Free" Rent, only Google gets to put cameras in the shower to watch your wife.
Google doesn't make software, they buy good software (keyhole etc..), thinks of a way to hide the fact they are privacy perverts and say its free.

Gmail, maps, search are the key strength of Google. That’s about what I use in Google.

Opportunity of Google OS:

Things that will work for Google OS are for non-tech heavy users which are > 70% of internet users (probably more). These are for people that "surf the net majority of the time for various reasons." No special or complicated need just to surf and interact through the net.

Ease of use and simple multi-media handling is something that Google can do a better job than windows.

A Unix base structure like the mac OS will simplify and reduce the complexity of the OS. The biggest advantage is much improved security.

Tech Users with Microsoft Windows:

Technology base users that use CAD/CAE tools won’t be too excited to migrate to another OS. It will take a while and it will require for companies such as Cadence/Synopsis..etc to port their design tools to another OS. That will require a lot of work.

Personally it took me a lot of work to migrate my design tools from XP to Windows Ultimate 64bit. I’m one of those who are not even looking forward to Windows 7. Although I’m thinking Vista Ultimate-64 to Windows7-64 transition is hopefully less complicated than XP-32 to Vista-64.

To date I still have 32 bit applications(Programs) that I’m porting to 32/64 OS so it can run on XP and Vista 32/64.

I have so much investment in my setup that I can’t switch OS.

Google's services are invaluable as long as they remain as they are "free".

i use yahoo & firefox, I never use google...frankly google stuff is over rated

I think this is the wrong place to be asking questions about Chrome OS.

Few of us here will be switching anytime soon we are too in love with our shiny graphics cards and big expensive cases plus you can't run photoshop on OS Chrome.

OS Chrome doesn't really apply to us in any real way but we are not the intended market.

I'm known as the computer nerd of the family and every now and then I get called over to recommend a set up.

The other day I went to see a relative and we started talking about his current set up. The last time I built him a PC it was a desktop but this time he told me he wanted something small and portable.

I asked him what he does with his computer and he told me he uses facebook and twitter. I asked him if he used anything else(I wanted to know if he required anything beefier before I recommended him a cheaper netbook) and he said no.

Anyway as we got talking he started asking me why cellphones boot up so fast and why computers are so slow. As I explained it to him he told me his computer was so slow he was using his iPhone to check his facebook instead of booting up his PC.

He told me the only function he requires from his PC is just something as cheap and small as possible that would allow him to check his facebook status updates every now and then.

Basically he wanted a very simple device that lets him get onto the internet and is cheap as peanuts.

If Google make a device and brand it "Google Internet Minicomputer" and put it in every Walmart as long as it is capable of getting people online for 100-150 dollars and letting them check their emails it will sell very well.

If people get the idea they can do everything they do with a device that cheap they will dump their big desktops and go for netbooks with Chrome OS installed.

Everybody that I talk to that I would call a technoob just wants something to surf the net with and for cheap and thats what Chrome OS is promising to do. If Google make this very cheap and widely available they will ravage Windows sales mercilessly.

You only have to look at netbook sales and see Desktop sales plummeting to see most people value cheap as possible over powerful and frankly superior.

100 dollar "Google Internet MiniComputer" at Walmart is the key to success. Make it boot up in 5 or 10 seconds and let people get to their facebook and twitter accounts and Microsoft is going to have a hard time telling people about how Windows can do more than Chrome OS when none of those functions are required by most users.

Let's say they deliver a solid OS and they would charge people for it (which we know they're not gonna do), that would mean Microsoft would have a direct competitor for the market share. This would mean that the price of Windows should fall a bit. In that hypothetical scenario, I would go for around 75$CAN. That's the price I assume a solid, stable, fast, manageable, secure, compatible OS should cost.

$10, there are tons of alternatives on the internet

The thing with netbooks is if they deliver the intended functions your average user requires(ie facebook and twitter) they won't opt for more expensive alternatives.

Most users just require very basic functions and they want them for as cheap as possible. If ARM was to put together a very cheap small netbook device and then Google Brand it as an internet system and sell it for a hundred dollars at Walmart the majority of internet users wouldn't pay 5 or 6 times as much for a PC or notebook with Windows installed on it.

The reason Windows marketshare will fall because of Chrome OS isn't because Chrome OS is superior in any way or form it's just because Chrome OS is cheaper and it provides the few functions the majority of people need(access to the internet).

It's going to be a hell of a lot harder trying to sell a 600 dollar Dell with Windows 7 when you can go to Walmart and pick up a 100 dollar Chrome OS netbook designed to just give you simple and fast internet access.

If Chrome OS is done right it will eat up the noob marketshare which is also the vast majority of the market in the order of 97 to 98%.

Google should pay me money for all the money I helped them make through ad revenue!

Linux is FREE right?

keep it open and free
google gets enough money with gooooooogle and adwords

If it support DirectX and has price half of Windows 7 then I'm sold

Not so much... I mean, if you look at what MS charges OEMs for a license, and compare it to the retail cost of Windows... Microsoft has just accepted that for every paid copy of Windows, you are really paying for about, what, 8 other people to pirate it? No other way the ridiculous retail price tag (as compared to the OEM license) makes sense... Just an agreement with OEMs that essentially encourages people to buy entirely new computers, while covering the 'cost' of the pirates.

At least there's Linux...

i do not use any google product other than search and gmail so i would pay nothing. Anyway there is noway in hell that google would ever charge to have a walled garden they make money on advertisements

I would pay for any OS that is priced below 90 euro (7 home will cost 190 euro here and OS X 129 euro while opensuse costs 60 and mandriva 50) and has a fairly wide release cycle.

As some above already said if you take away gaming CAD and some custom software there really is not much reason to fixate on one platform or OS as most people who buy a new system from end up chatting on msn while browsing the web and maybe play some video/music.

As for paying for services they provide for "free" now ... Hell No!

Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Look it up.

I use mainly the search engine and Gmail sometimes.
I tried Chrome browser but i still prefer Firefox despite the new clean look and it's awesome multitasking. Hopefully Firefox become also multithread/multiprocess one day.
I don't plan to use ChromeOS because it lacks of local application support and don't support high performance games.

I will never pay for server fed apps. Imagine if commercial software goes this way and you have to pay a monthy fee for individual office apps; computers would soom become as cell phones, where the companies nickel and dime you until you have an enormous monthly bill.

Holy cow people, think bigger.

This is your OS, your office suite, your calendaring, backups, navigation, and (one presumes) more. All provided by one vendor, and all functional (well, I assume, since asking how much you would pay for non-functional apps seems weird).

Heck - now that I have my pre google even powers my phone contacts.

Add in the idea of a computer that boots and runs quicker?

I expect even if people are saying they wouldn't pay, they will.

Lots.

Google is the solution to almost any question or challenge I have. Their amazing search engine has been god to me since day 1. I have used a few of the google services, and they all have been extremely useful. Google maps and translator being the top along with the search engine.

If the Google OS is secure I would consider it for home use. Also assuming It is compatible with windows software. (Assumption is the mother of all F ups)

They will have to keep it free to have Gmail, Calendar and all the other goodies incorporated into the OS… Or face the wrath MS is facing now with the EU.

The one thing that really surprises me however is the lack of willing to try new OS by you people… Most of you have already decided this Google OS blows and we haven’t even seen it or tried it yet!? Why not give it a chance? Perhaps it will be the MS killer… Don’t we all want that deep down?

Furthermore Google OS is not due for release till end of 2010, Is it possible the Google Giant actually has a good OS? It’s not like this is two nerds in their basement building an OS… It’s Google (20,164 full-time employees) and a net worth of US $23 billion.

[citation][nom]I don't plan to use ChromeOS because it lacks of local application support and don't support high performance games.[/citation]

How do you know this? Did i miss some information somewhere on this OS?