<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Obligatory Post on Google Chrome OS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.danielhall.me/2009/07/the-obligatory-post-on-google-chromeos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.danielhall.me/2009/07/the-obligatory-post-on-google-chromeos/</link>
	<description>Because the Internet doesn&#039;t have enough opinions already</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:10:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: detoxdiet</title>
		<link>http://www.danielhall.me/2009/07/the-obligatory-post-on-google-chromeos/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>detoxdiet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.danielhall.me/?p=54#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Chrome OS would be very competitive on Microsoft operating systems. I was thinking that one day, Google would launch an Operating system that would complete with Windows XP or Vista. Google and Microsoft would compete head to head now that Microsft launched its Bing search engine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chrome OS would be very competitive on Microsoft operating systems. I was thinking that one day, Google would launch an Operating system that would complete with Windows XP or Vista. Google and Microsoft would compete head to head now that Microsft launched its Bing search engine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Teo</title>
		<link>http://www.danielhall.me/2009/07/the-obligatory-post-on-google-chromeos/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Daryl Teo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.danielhall.me/?p=54#comment-3</guid>
		<description>-- Copy Paste from Facebook - 

There are reasons why Google has been pushing the HTML5 standard very heavily.

- defines a standardised client-side database for javascript
- rich content as part of the html5 specifications
- multi-threaded javascript.... Read more
- probably more.

The brilliance of this is that if this takes off, people who use gOS will automatically have a whole suite of Google apps to use, not forgetting all the other &quot;3rd party&quot; apps on Google Apps/Labs. That&#039;s why its called Chrome, since it will basically be a glorified internet browser from the looks of it (where most applications will simply exist on the web, like you said.

Your argument on internet availability is valid, which is why Google have been working heavily on Google Gears, which allows users to use their services while offline. (it updates when it detects internet availability).

I&#039;m not saying this is the most awesome stuff, but unlike Ubuntu, Google might just have enough clout with OEMs to persuade them to dump Windows support (or exclusivity at the very least)

What will be interesting to see is whether/how Google intends to profit from this at all. Though this might just be yet another cog in part of their massive plan to continue dominating the web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8211; Copy Paste from Facebook &#8211; </p>
<p>There are reasons why Google has been pushing the HTML5 standard very heavily.</p>
<p>- defines a standardised client-side database for javascript<br />
- rich content as part of the html5 specifications<br />
- multi-threaded javascript&#8230;. Read more<br />
- probably more.</p>
<p>The brilliance of this is that if this takes off, people who use gOS will automatically have a whole suite of Google apps to use, not forgetting all the other &#8220;3rd party&#8221; apps on Google Apps/Labs. That&#8217;s why its called Chrome, since it will basically be a glorified internet browser from the looks of it (where most applications will simply exist on the web, like you said.</p>
<p>Your argument on internet availability is valid, which is why Google have been working heavily on Google Gears, which allows users to use their services while offline. (it updates when it detects internet availability).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying this is the most awesome stuff, but unlike Ubuntu, Google might just have enough clout with OEMs to persuade them to dump Windows support (or exclusivity at the very least)</p>
<p>What will be interesting to see is whether/how Google intends to profit from this at all. Though this might just be yet another cog in part of their massive plan to continue dominating the web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

