Talk:ChromeOS/Archive 2

Version numbers
The article doesn't cite any sources about the version numbers in the infobox. I'm not sure about this but according to this website a different version number is cited. --  R a f y  talk 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Getchrome.eu is not affiliated with Google in any way. as far as current build number there will be no published current version number as the OS is dynamically updated just like its broeser counterpart. But for the most part the beta build number have been 0.x.x.xxx.x where x.x.xxx.x is the build of the chrome browser in which the OS's UI is based.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 14:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. Can you include a reference or an explanation to the version number?--  R a f y  talk 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the only official reference to the build number is is the current image which can be downloaded at the file name includes the version number. This is the only way to get the current version number of Chrome OS additionally you can view the list of nightly chromium vanilla builds compiled by hexxh a developer that as gotten much positive feedback form Google at  these will be similar numbers to what users of chrome OS are updating the build number with. Just like chromium and chrome browsers, as well as other software the version numbers start at development (chromium) and trickle downstream to Gold. I will work on a paragraph about chrome os beta and dev build numbers and how they relate th the chrome browser engine version if that is what your ashing for but due to the technical natue of finding the build numbers i don't feel these links should be considered "references". --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 04:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

ARM Architecture Support
How dose anyone know why ARM is listed when no Chrome OS Devices have shipped with an ARM processor? I can see Chromium OS supporting ARM since it is an open hardware os but Chrome OS supporting ARM? really? how does anyone know? and most importantly since chrome OS is closed hardware is it verifiable? Google actually prefers to use x86 (Intel Atom) whenever possible, the Google TV platform is another example of a Google Linux OS in which Google regulates the hardware.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's listed because the associated cite from Bloomberg claims ARM compatibility. "The Chrome OS -- which will run on traditional Intel Corp.- based x86 chips, along with semiconductors designed by ARM Holdings Plc -- will work on lightweight netbooks along with more powerful computers, including desktop PCs, Google said." So does ARM itself: here--although the emphasis is on Android.  Whether actual ARM-based hardware will actually ship is another matter, but that broader question...what will actually ship....has hovered over this article for months.   Barte (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is reliably cited, so it ought to be retained, at least until a better ref says it isn't so. It is likely that this represents "future plans". - Ahunt (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK thank you for enlightening me on this scenario, I did not know That the ARM alliance had it listed on their website, I was looking for a source form Google, I never though to go straight tot the hardware standard's page and look up the operating system.
 * I can see the need for ARM architecture support on a Netbook OS, as Netbooks, smartphones and tablets are rapidly converging. --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 17:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Chromium OS be merged into Chrome OS. I think that the content in the Chromioum OS article can easily be explained in the context of Chrome OS, and the Chrome OS article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Chromioum OS will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Additionally, Merging Chromioum OS into the Chrome OS article Will educate users on the differences and clear up any potential misunderstandings about the hardware restrictions of the polished Chrome OS Versions. Even a partial merger of the instruction paragraph and a link to the main article would be beneficial to this article. I have noticed that the more the chrome OS article gets updated the more Chromioum OS gets outdated, this merger Will also ensure that all data regarding the product and it's open source development stays up-to-date --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Opinions welcomed below


 * Support, the existence of two articles only helps to create confusion.--  R a f y  talk 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Just noting....a merger discussion took place in late 2009 on the Chromium OS talk page. It's still there.  The result back then: no consensus.  Barte (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I am mostly neutral too. As long as Chromium OS proves to only be the open source project that produces Chrome OS and no other products then it would make sense to merge the two. However if, as in the case of the Chrome and Chromium browsers, other people start taking the Chromium source code and producing their own versions of the OS then we really need to keep the Chromium OS article as the "trunk" of the "tree" and to avoid making a real mess out of the Chrome OS article trying to cover all the "branches". For this reason it may be best to leave things as they are for now and revisit this issue later on as it is much easier to merge later than unmerge. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But merging isn't trivial. So one question for supporters......are you prepared to put in the time to do it right?Barte (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTEYes, regardless Of the amount of data we are wishing to merge i am willing to take the time to merge the data properly.Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 20:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just "data merging"--read wp:merger for the additional requirements. And of course it's also the ability to write to encyclopedia standards.  Charles, your comments here may not be indicative of your writing skills (talk page standards are more lax), but, just for example, you consistently misspelled "Chromium" above, while capitalizing words inappropriately in the middle of sentences,  and used   "it's" when you meant "its"--all in a single paragraph. So some reassurance that the resulting article won't require extensive copy editing would be, um, reassuring.  Other than that, I remain emphatically neutral.  Barte (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do make frequent mistakes as far as capitalization punctuation and grammar, but when I take my time I can have a flawless document. Rest assured, in the event a merger is agreed upon I would be seeking additional personal help in checking my work. The article would have little to nothing wrong by the end of the project. When there is something that i'm interested in I cannot put it down until it's prefect. Back when I first started using computers I used to constantly and intentionally turn caps lock on and off for each capital letter. When I started training myself to use the shift key I started capitalizing each word. --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comment. Thanks.  Barte (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, why was the screenshot reverted?
There was a screenshot I uploaded of Google Chrome OS 0.12.433.28 (Dev) and edited into this article. For some odd reason, it was removed and there seems to be no mention on this Talk Page about it. What is wrong with uploading that screenshot (which I deliberately specified as of BSD-licensed software, which is what Google Chrome OS is), for the love of God?


 * It is important to use factory default settings on operating system screenshots for multiple reasons including but not limited to allowing the user to identify the operating system or software better. The previous screenshot had multiple third party applications and extnetions installed. The one you "relaced" it with as the exact same build number and had only Google copyrighed apps, this is obviously for copyright reasons too. Addtionaly if you want to "replace" an image in the future please read the "Replaceable?" section in the Fair use rationale, The previous image commented "Replaceable: Yes, only with a newer version of Chrome OS in which the ui has been modified by Google, with the screenshot taken using the defalut settings for the operating system" --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Released by June 2011?
Maybe - this is a bit too unsubstantiated for me to add to the article [http://www.conceivablytech.com/7141/products/chrome-os-almost-done-gets-alex-and-file-manager Chrome OS Almost Done? Gets Alex And File Manager], but the source is reliable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My rule of thumb: If the headline has a question mark in it, it's not a good enough cite. Headlines with the word "may" are also suspect. Barte (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I entered the Google Science Fair, and one of the prizes was a chrome notebook if your in the 15 finalists.The 15 finalists are all given a Chrome Notebook when they go to Google's office in California on July 11,2011. That means that the Chrome Notebook has to be released on/before July 11 of this year.--Nyswimmer (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You could be right. But it's not verifiable until a notable publication reports it--not as a rumor or inference, but as a fact. Barte (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They could be leftover Cr-48s! - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Google as constantly been "Pushing Back" the "release Date" right now the "beta test" which Google called a pilot test, according to the chrome OS article is the only method Google is using to determine of this project will "sink or swim" so to speak. CR-48 Pilot notebook versions of chrome os report anonymous browsing usage statistics to Google. this is certainly a new way of doing market research on a product. I would say in my professional opinion Chrome OS devices will not likely hit the retail market until at least next year.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If ever. If the data isn't good they may just shelve the project, depending on what the hardware manufacturers have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True but upon upgrading to the Dev Chanel this weekend I discovered a "stable" build option, a clue to me that Google plans to bring this to market within the year.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 21:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Devices Announced.
Chrome Os Devices will be releases June 15. See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-kind-of-computer-chromebook.html --Nyswimmer (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a beginning section based on WSJ reporting. Improve it.  Be bold. (But within guidelines.) Barte (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pricing
Do you think the early pricing predictions, which turned out to be wrong, should be retained for historical purposes, at least to show the degree of speculation about the economics of this OS? - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh! Obviously not me, as I just cut the section.  Part of the section correctly predicted the pricing. The other part--one observer, and just one, predicted the hardware would be given away.  Seems to me the first is now redundant, the second a faint footnote not worth retaining. Barte (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah it was the wrong prediction I thought might be worth retaining, mostly to show the sort of speculating that was going on about the OS in its early days, just for the sake of history. Incidentally I can buy new Acer Aspire netbooks here for $229 today. I am not sure how they will be able to sell Chrome books for almost double that price - it must be some marketing campaign they have planned! - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrome OS has been the subject of more than its share of wild speculation--that's the price of a high-visibility project delayed. My inclination is to trim it as it's proven wrong; but I won't object if you want to restore these, um, weeds. ;-)  Re: the price, the WSJ story lists two benefits: 8 second boot and no virus protection needed.  Will those be enough to sell Chromebooks?  We shall see. Barte (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's leave it as is then. I guess the next information on this subject will be sales figures - that will be the proof-in-the-pudding. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And if additional hardware gets released.Barte (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File manager news
Looks like the file manager is progressing Chrome OS File Manager Gets Secret Shortcuts although I am not sure why this is needed. Chrome OS is slowly becoming just another distro. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrome OS ha Incorporated a full fledged file manager because you may run into the event you need one. for example, uploading pictures to the web form a USB stick or SD card, the File manager was introduced along with Mass storage support. However, i disagree that this is a full distro as you don't have access to the root partition, the RootFS is read only, and your "file shelf" as Google calls it is really only a temporary storage.--Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 18:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes sense if you are going to be able to take photos off a camera that you will need a file manager to handle them, but it would also make sense that you would need GIMP or something similar to process them, too. Originally this OS was going to have "just a browser and nothing else", now they have a media player, PDF viewer and file manager. It will be interesting to see how far down that road they go. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Chromebook--the article
The addition of Chromebook as a new article may or may not wind up adding value to this one. But lifting wording from here (mine), leaving a paragraph without the original citation, doesn't work, and I've added it back in. If Chromebook is going to be the "main article" for the commercial hardware section of Chrome OS, editors should try their hand at some original writing, rather than duplicating what's already here. The article also need to be accurate--which so far, it's not quite. (Chromebooks have only one app--the browser. That's what the citations all say.)  Am I being clear here? This is all said, of course, with the assumption of good faith. Barte (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current section in this article doesn't need to be cannibalized to add to Chromebook and support your fix of it. I have addressed the software issue over at Chromebook, but I really need a recent ref that says it is "browser only". - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I added one. Another way to make the same point....find one notable reference that documents a native app in addition to the browser.  I've never seen one, including the NYT blog post that was cited in the Chromebook paragraph.  Of course, there the file manager--but whether we're talking about Linux, Windows, or MacOS, file managers have been considered part of the OS, not a separate app. So I think that would apply to Chrome OS too, yes?Barte (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that ref! I think we are down to a semantic argument there! - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thin client or Computer terminal
How should Chrome OS be categorized? As Thin client or Computer terminal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is neither. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question. I would have thought "thin client" But the category includes Android and Netbooks, neither of which are inherently thin clients in my universe.  Barte (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those may well be mis-categorized, though. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed netbook from the category thin clients, it doesn't belong there. As far as cats for this article go, I think it is right now, with Google and Linux distributions.- Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * re: netbooks, do you suppose someone confused "thin" client with "thin" machine? ;-) Barte (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is actually funny! - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition a thin client is a client computer with a small if any operating system installed used to boot the machine and access network resources. see Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs as an example of a thin client operating system. Being as chrome os is not yet fully developed we cannot determine weather or not it will have the limitations of a true "thin client"--Koman90 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Android - quote has been explained incorrectly
" Co-founder Sergey Brin suggested that the two systems "will likely converge over time.""

The section then goes on to explain that Chrome OS is "built using Portage" and Android is "... based on a modified version of the Linux kernel."

What Sergey was trying to explain was that eventually cloud-based features will take over, including phone features (calling, texting) - not that Google are planning to merge the platforms into one piece. I feel that this section on the article has been mis-understood, about what Sergey was trying to say. I'm willing to help re-write the section if others agree with me or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3n87 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section needs work--in that the info about the differing architectures is used as an argument to counter Brin's assertion. (wp:synth)So I'll begin by separating the two thoughts. Beyond that, we're constrained by the citation.  Most of the CNET article makes the case for maintaining both OSs.  Brin suggests otherwise, but I think it's just one sentence:
 * "But Brin, speaking informally to reporters after the company's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday, said 'Android and Chrome will likely converge over time,' citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects.
 * That's what we've got. If you want to expand the thought beyond that, you'll need more references to cite. References that, in this case, specifically quote Brin.  As editors, we can summarize and paraphrase, but we can't analyze or interpret. Barte (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I do apologizes, i was the one that added the second though "Convergence" is a relative term and i was unaware weather the previous though was about Operating system Architecture Convergence, Device Market Space Convergence, Cloud client model Convergence, ect ect ect... After reading the above i agree not the best place for my point is in a separate paragraph as it clarifies that is not the OSes themselves Converging--Koman90 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the section is a lot clearer now, and doesn't imply one way or anything, it just quotes what has been said by Sergey. what koman90 had written was correct, it just need separating (which it now is). Good work :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3n87 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Design goals vs. design
Now that Chrome OS is shipping, the design goal section is problematic. Some of the design proposals listed (i.e. the integrated media player) have made it into the product. Other design proposals, undoubtedly, have not. Ideally, I think, the design proposal section would shrink and an actual design description section would be added. But I'm not sure what the cited basis for that would be. Google apparently hasn't updated the online info, and I don't see in the reviews the kind of specific description of the OS that would work. So for the time being, other than a few changes to past tense that I've made, the description is in limbo. Barte (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone object if I add a sentence to the article stating that Google has not updated its description of the OS? Barte (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair, although hard to reference!! - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It smacks of OR, and if anyone challenges it, I hereby raise the white flag. Barte (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to state, though, and if need be we could cite new and old versions of the page from Archive.org. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a swipe at it. Feel free to improve. Barte (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks eminently reasonable to me. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes this the first eminently reasonable act I've committed in years. Barte (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might set a precedent! - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GPS and Bluetooth in Cr-48
The link leading from the claim that the Cr-48 has GPS and Bluetooth doesn't mention anything about a GPS, and says the device has only Bluetooth 2.1, not 3.0 as claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthylafh (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Made the change.  Thanks Barte (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolfgang Gruener on Chrome OS
Wolfgang Gruener has a good track record as a reliable writer on both the Chrome browser and Chrome OS. I don't think that there is much that is quotable in this article as it is mostly clear speculation, but I think his line of thinking bears following over time by editors working on this Wikipedia article as he may be right in his reasoning as to what Google is up to in marketing both.


 * Google, So What About Chrome OS?

- Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gruener's speculation. In the galaxy of Google offerings as currently arrayed, Google+ and Android shine much brighter than Chrome OS, and that if the OS is to prove itself, it will only be long term; the short-term launch was hardly notable.  The only counter-evidence I've seen was a piece claiming that two Chromebooks are among the top 10 sellers on Amazon in the netbook category. But an ordered list doesn't say much in terms of comparative sales (#4 could be a distant, distant fourth to #1), so I didn't add it.  But that space might be worth watching. Barte (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a worthwhile subject and very relevant to this article, but I think we need something more substantive, like sales numbers or lack thereof, to really add this to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Xi3
The reference to the system from Xi3 seems like advertising. Can someone explain its relevance? 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampros (talk • contribs)


 * I agree the wording is not very good. Normally this would go in the Chromebook article except it isn't a notebook-style computer. I am not sure if we should be cataloging all the hardware that Chrome OS is available on in this article or not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Per the device's press release (and the name itself), this is a Chromium OS device, not a Chrome OS device. There is a difference.  The former is a device to which someone's version of Chromium has been ported.  The latter includes Chrome OS firmware, as well as the OS itself, and can only be built with a Google manufacturing partner.  I think a mention could go in the Chromium OS article even though it's not a netbook. Chromium has also been ported to an iPad. Barte (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)  And did just that--put a mention in Chromium OS.  Another device with the same approach was already in the article....so I added it there. Barte (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good compromise! - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots
The screenshots of Google Chrome OS keep getting deleted from Commons as they almost always seem to have copyrighted logos, etc, in them. I have used an older screenshot, but I am not convinced that it won't get deleted as well. I would suggest that someone who has a current version of the OS do a screenshot and upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) under fair use. Use a generic name for the file and as new versions are released add the updated screenshots to the existing file "upload a new version of this file" so that we can avoid displaying broken image links on the article page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has different criteria for images than Commons? Didn't know that.  (On Wikipedia, there's always one more thing I didn't know.) Barte (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed! Commons only accepts freely-licenced images (public domain, CC-licenced or similar), whereas you can upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia that are to be used under the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law. That is why you will find all company logos used in articles (copyrighted) are on Wikipedia and not Commons. It is a legal thing! - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New Screenshot/Version numbers??
Today, I edited this page with a screenshot of a more recent build of Chrome OS, and changed the version numbers to the current build numbers, but both of these modifications were removed. The build numbers displayed are severely outdated, and, being the poster of the image, that image is of a fairly old build. Bonkadventure2 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted them because your versions numbers are for the Google Chrome browser, not the Google Chrome operating system. The numbering is totally different. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is no longer true. See the Chrome Releases Blog. Scroll down until you come across "[channel] update for Chromebooks". The platform number now uses a totally numbering method, but the version number remains the same as always, other than the removal of the "0" digit from the beginning of the number. Bonkadventure2 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The release notes are for Google Chrome, not Chrome OS and the version numbers there are for versions of Chrome used in Chrome OS. No where in that does it give any indication what the Chrome OS version numbers are. You still need to cite a ref to change this and that ref doesn't give any information on Chrome OS version numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This link would seem suitable. Dev Channel Update For Chromebooks, version 18.0.1017.3, platform 1625.0.0. Maybe they should be replaced with the platform numbers?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkadventure2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. As I mentioned above that is the release notes for the browser and details browser version numbers, not operating system version numbers. - 11:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I go into "About Chrome OS" on my Chromebook, I see identical version numbers to the numbers listed on that page. Are you telling me that that two official sources are not credible?? Google does not do the "0.--.-.---.--" numbering system anymore. Bonkadventure2 (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the OS numbering system has been changed then where is the announcement of that? - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a specific announcement, but if you check the reference for the current stable version number, the page that it redirects to says "Stable Channel for the CR-48 has been updated to version 1193.117.0. The Chrome browser version is 16.0.912.66.". The 0000.000.0. number is the platform number for the OS, and the 00.0.000.00 number is, presumably, the browser version. I believe that, from here on out, it's best that this page utilizes the platform number. Bonkadventure2 (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claims Ahunt? Pyxzer (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't need to. As the person adding this you have to cite the ref required to support your addition. See WP:ONUS. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't have to defend your ludicrous claims? Pyxzer (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the page I linked to - you have to provide refs if you want to change this. We have been around this issue before. Someone gets on a Chromebook, boots it up, clicks the wrench and checks the version number and claims that is the OS version number when they are reading the browser version number. This is why we have verifiability requirements to make changes. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But you don't have to verify this madness of 0.? I'd wager the rule applies for all not only when people try to correct your mistakes. Pyxzer (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All you have to do it cite a reference to show that the change you are trying to make is verifiable. Nothing else. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay your latest edit and the refs you added proves the point that I am making here. Your ref http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2012/05/stable-and-beta-update-for-chromebooks.html is for Chrome and details Chrome browser version numbers from the browser release notes website, not Chrome OS. Please change it back. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have the references for it, why don't you just edit it to the correct version? Pyxzer (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The references that you added show that the version numbers you have entered are for the Chrome browser. Google publishes browser version numbers as they are released at http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com and the underlying source code for Chromium-browser at http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/releases/. As you have shown by the refs the information you have entered is verifiably wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am yet to be proven wrong, my dear. Pyxzer (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlike with the Chrome browser, Google does not post the Chrome OS version numbers on the internet. They have to be looked up on a Chromebook. I have asked for assistance in this matter. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems, it is actually the platform number that is the Chrome OS version number. If I go to chrome://system there are several lines (CHROMEOS_RELEASE_DESCRIPTION, CHROMEOS_RELEASE_VERSION, GOOGLE_RELEASE) that all say 2268.9.0. When I Ctrl+F for it, I find this as well: ChromeOSVersion="2268.9.0". Pyxzer (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the way Google handles Chrome OS info online makes cites difficult, but the onus is on you, Pyxzer, to prove your edits are accurate, not on your fellow editors to prove you wrong. If a piece of information can't be proven, the default is to delete. So here's what I see: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2012/05/dev-channel-update-for-chromebooks.html is clearly subtitled "Announcements and release note for the Google Chrome Browser". That's the browser, not the OS. And further down the infobox, I don't see any official site for Chrome OS. http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ is for Chromebooks. http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os is for Chromium OS. Unless we can do better than that, I think the release numbers and the official website fields should simply be deleted. As in--no verifiable information available.Barte (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, shush. Besides, it's funny because google.com/chromeos redirects to Chromebooks, but from there, at the bottom, the Chrome OS link brings us to the Chromium OS bit. Functionally, both are equally correct. And I just verified the version number loveliness. Pyxzer (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's your best argument, I vote to delete. Barte (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I mean, the whole version number things is mental. I'll just take it out. Pyxzer (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that! Leaving it out for lack of refs is probably the best idea. - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Android 5.0 and Chrome OS
After anon's deletion and the revert, I took a look at the ref for the statement that Android 5.0 is "expected" to incorporate Chrome OS features:
 * "To this end, Android 5.0 could be set to integrate Chrome OS functions, bringing the netbook OS in line with tablets and smartphones (just as Ice Cream Sandwich was intended to bring smartphones and tablets in line with each other)."

Is this "expected", or is it the isolated speculation of one writer? At this point, given that Android 4.0 has barely been implemented, this seems awfully crystal ballish. Barte (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does seem too WP:CRYSTAL. I reverted it because the IP editor removed a cited passage with no edit summary. I thought it was at least worth a discussion, but I have no objection if you remove it...with an edit summary explaining why! - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this might be a case where reason was sound....but MIA. Barte (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Official Chrome OS site--does it exist?
Pers my comment above, I don't see one. http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ is for Chromebooks. http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os is for Chromium OS. Compare these with the (clearly identifiable) official site of another OS that is available only on integrated hardware: iOS. Barte (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to the same conclusion. The most telling factor is probably that the "Chrome OS" link on the Chromebook hardware page goes to http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed. Complaints and comments welcome here. Barte (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable move since there doesn't seem to be an official page on the OS. That also explains whey there is no list of current versions either - nowhere to post it. - Ahunt (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Change artical
This article reads more like an editorial on chrome os than from a view-point that would be expected from an encyclopedia. Maybe somebody should re-read it and flag who is more influential than I am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.52.114 (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * specifics, please Barte (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the article I am not seeing that it is more like an editorial than an encyclopedia article. I agree with User:Barte, you will have to provide some specific instances to show what your issue is with the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Android section...
It should be said that while Chrome OS (Chromium OS) and Android are seperate OSes, and that yes, Google owns both, this is in no way any differant than Apple owning Mac OS X (Darwin) and iOS, Oracle's Solaris and Linux (both client and/or server platforms), and Microsoft's own Windows Phone & Windows OS (which are only now, with Windows 8, the same OS).

Chrome OS is not marketed for, intended for, or usable on handheld devices. Though Chrome OS can in theory be installed on any hardware, it's impractical to do so. Android, on the other hand, can also be installed to a wide range of hardware devices, and though it has some popularity in the desktop market, it is intended for, marketed to and installed on handheld devices such as tablets and phones.

Saying Google has a big issue with competing OSes is like saying the office fridge competes with the deep freezer. Yes, very similar tasks, very similar apperances (as being based on the Linux kernel), very differant jobs.

Just an old man's opinion that someone may choose to summerize and insert in the main article.

~AeSix 173.171.151.229 (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As per WP:V and WP:OR, to include this sort of information we need reliable references. Opinions are not acceptable on Wikipedia unless sourced from reliable references. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of chromium screenshot
since chromium is the frequently updated, open source version of chrome, could a screenshot of chromium be used in this article? I feel that because they are more updaed, a chromium screenshot is more likely to reflect the updates issued by google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It should go in the Chromium OS article, not here as Chromium OS is not Chrome OS. The images are representational only, there is no need that they be up-to-the-minute updates. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-Free image use
As the logos of Facebook, Angry Birds and numerous other third parties are visible needlessly in this image, I believe that the best and most efficient method of moving the article forward is to simply blur the copyrighted logos within the image. this preserves the integrity and fidelity of the image and avoids violation of the fair use rationale which does not include the visibility of such logos. NotinREALITY 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay since you have directly addressed that issue let me engage an admin who understands this issue and see if we can gain some clarity as to whether this is required or not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be suitable, but I have seen examples where this has been performed for the same reasons, and I will attempt to post them for analysis and comparison. NotinREALITY  12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, does anybody mind if I shorten the caption, it seems needlessly long. NotinREALITY  12:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Shortening the caption sounds like a good idea! It is far longer than required. If anything is required to be retained from the caption it should be moved to the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have shortened it to "Google Chrome OS (21.0.1172.0) displaying the app drawer and Chrome browser." which summaries the image nicely. The rest of the original contents were already in the article body. NotinREALITY  12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be back on for discussion about the image tomorrow (if needed), but for now i need some sleep, i will remove this message then aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note but I would have thought that the wiki globe is more of a copyright problem than the logos, not sure it is available on a free licence. The screenshot is far to complicated for an infobox image is anything else available that gives a simple representation of the OS. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The WikiMedia logo and website are in the public domain / creative commons and can be used in such a manner, so this is not really an issue. There are other files that are suitable, and this discussion began due to my replacement of the current image with File:Chrome_OS_updated_NRLTY.png in the commons, which is of the open source variant of Chrome OS, Chromium. the solution in place currently is simply to blur the infringing logos. NotinREALITY  13:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input here. I agree that a simpler image would be a good solution. We need to appeal to someone who is running this OS to provide one. User:Kenny Strawn provided the current one, perhaps he could give us a fresh image without the complications? - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I Agree, can someone e-mail him? NotinREALITY  13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can leave him a note on his talk page. Apparently the Wikipedia logo is "all rights reserved" - see that file and all the others on Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like he isn't with us anymore. We need someone else running Chrome OS to get a better screen shot. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If its in the commons, it is free for use, they have a policy for that :D NotinREALITY  13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not according to the caption on commons it is All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., it is only on commons because it is a wikimedia website. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and I suspect you new screenshot of the wikpedia page will have to be put up for deletion for using the wikipedia logo as well. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have been reading Licensing, and it indicates that the purpose of the commons is to provide free for use images. The about page on wikipedia indicates that the site is under a cc-by license and can be used under attribution. Thoughts? LachlanDMcCahon (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Other articles featuring wikipedia website.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_firefox
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_explorer
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_%28web_browser%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_chrome
 * Any more objections to its use? LachlanDMcCahon 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, How about a google promo shot of the desktop, they are free for commercial use and would feature only the pre-installed google products. NotinREALITY  13:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia main page is the standard for web browser screenshots, but it would free us up a lot if we used a different page for screenshots. Maybe an RfC is in order? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the use of a different site would be suitable, i can create and upload one to my server for the screenshot with a free license if it would help :D On the other hand, Chrome OS is basically just a browser based on a minimal linux kernal and window manager, so should it not conform to the web browser standard? NotinREALITY  03:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy to create a simple test page if you guys want to. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can always us any US government website - they are all public domain. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I also believe the logo for meta is public domain, so a page there could be used. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I found another, more recent image of Google Chrome OS mentioned above, but it was argued that because it was an image of Chromium OS it's not covered. The image is File:Chrome OS updated NRLTY.png (I've marked it to be moved to a more suitable name). Unfortunately, it's still the Wikipedia main page... --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Avast
It should be mentioned that when Avast 7 asks permission to update, if you click yes, it automatically installs Google Chrome without your permission and makes it the default browser. Chrome rendered the dropdown menus on my ISPs homepage unusable because the address bar covered them (one of them was the login menu) so I thought a virus had infected my computer until someone pointed it out. I'm not sure if it was Chrome or Avast but it also disabled my ISPs webmail and made Outlook default. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is related to Google Chrome OS, but to Google Chrome, or more likely to Avast! as they have bundled a Chromium-based browser to their software. If you check the Avast! article under "SafeZone" you will find this is an intention feature. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging from the above external link, this clearly seems an Avast! issue re: the Chrome browser. FWIW, this article claims Chrome isn't installed without user permission. Barte (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thx. I'm not that computer savvy so I didn't know there was difference between the OS and browser. Wayne (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference link
Please correct the link for reference [15]. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out! ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks. Barte (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, no problem, that is why we all check each other! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: move the hardware topics to Chromebook
I think what happened in this: as Chromebook took off, the hardware discussion here has dried up. Which means readers get a fragmented picture. The Cr-48, for example, is discussed partially here as a prototype, partially on Chromebook, where it is properly seen as the first Chromebook. Whereas third-generation machines are entirely over there--no mention here, at all. The situation is somewhat akin to iOS, which is not available apart from the hardware. Ditto Chrome OS.

So I propose a simple dividing line: if it's about Chrome OS, the OS, it stays here. If it's about hardware running Chrome OS, it goes there. I'm willing to take on the initial cut, paste and merge (I don't think it's all that complicated.) I also think some general trimming is in order. Chrome OS tablets? Speculative vaporware. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree on all counts - the software should be at Google Chrome OS and the hardware at Chromebook. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. At least a first pass. See what you think.  I'll also take a fresh look at what remains here. Barte (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You did a lot of work there! It looks good to me at first glance, but let me go over it in a bit more detail. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely got obsessed. The morning after, I'm still seeing typos. Barte (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just went though both articles in detail and made a few minor changes. In general they both look complete and in good shape! As usual the on going challenge will be to monitor additions to make sure that they go into the right article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That may not be all that difficult. Except for historical issues as recently seen here, the action has shifted to Chromebook. And with good reason.  Unlike Apple with iOS, Google does not seem to publicize upgrades to Chrome OS. I have no idea, for example, what the current Chrome OS version is, whereas I'm somehow aware that it's iOS 6.x Barte (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Informality
This article feels to me far more informal than most articles I find on Wikipedia.

Examples:


 * "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer accused Google of not being able to make up its mind."
 * The whole of this section.

Alexbrainbox (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For me, clarity and concision are more important than formality for formality's sake. But if you feel you can improve the tone of the article, by all means please do. Barte (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for version history
I propose that we create a page called Google Chrome OS version history which shows all the history of google chrome OS version history Skybliei (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like a bad idea, but do consider WP:NOTCHANGELOG before you start it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What source/cite do you propose to use? Barte (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I doint know I will look for sources and add it Skybliei (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The best primary source for version history would probably be the official release announcement blog (link). The big issue to watch for is that it covers all versions of Chrome, so it is super easy to mistake a Chrome OS release for a standard Chrome release (in short, be very careful). Looking at the WP:NOTCHANGELOG page, this may not even be information worth including. I'm still new here, so I won't make that call, but if someone else wants some help putting it together I would help as much as I can. CraigTumblison (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Since this discussion the separate article was in fact created, sent for a deletion discussion and deleted due to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The deletion discussion can be seen at Articles for deletion/Google Chrome OS version history. - Ahunt (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, thanks for letting me know the details of what happened with that page. CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What would work instead is a separate section in this article describing significant changes to Chrome OS. Here are some possible sources; others are probably out there:


 * http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/googles-chrome-os-will-soon-look-more-like-windows-than-a-browser/
 * http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/google-updates-chrome-os-chrome-browser-and-chrome-for-android/
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57573795-93/google-now-starts-arriving-in-latest-chrome-chrome-os/
 * http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/21/chrome-os-update-auto-arranges-windows-supports-multi-display/

I'm defining "significant" as a change that is notable enough to generate news coverage. Barte (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That approach makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible, as I mentioned earlier I'm more than happy to help find and organize the information. I'll just need some direction as to the preferred layout (table, bullets, short summaries) and best practices. I'm still reading all the editing docs here in an attempt to become more familiar with contributing to Wikipedia. Let me know how I can help :) CraigTumblison (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to try your hand at expanding the section, I'm happy to collaborate. Basically it's 1) find more notable references on significant upgrades to the OS; 2) summarize and, if appropriate, quote; and 3) cite the reference.  At this point, it probably makes sense just to add paragraphs.  A bulleted list may (or may not) makes sense down the line.  I'm happy to answer questions here. Barte (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Packaged apps
As an article that so far doesn't look like it's been updated very frequently, it only mentions Web apps exclusivity, several times in fact. Nowhere does it mention the Packaged apps APIs or Packaged Apps section of the Chrome Web Store (need the Dev Channel to be able to see this link), anywhere in the article. There should be an entire section to dedicate as such. Thank you. 2602:306:BCA6:AC60:28E1:EBD:6AC9:740F (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Here's a reference connecting Packaged Apps with Chrome OS. But seems to me that Packaged Apps are as much related to the Chrome browser as they are to the OS.  If that's the case, maybe the subject deserves a separate entry, which could then be linked from both Chrome-related articles. Barte (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I used the above ref plus the Google primary source noted above to write a paragraph in its own section (agreed) that attempts to give a laymen's explanation. Improvements welcome. Barte (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome OS → Chrome OS – Per WP:Common name. I spot checked my Google Alerts for the term "Chrome OS" and none of them used the full name Google Chrome OS. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – "Chrome OS" is common and specific enough. --Article editor (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The sources support Chrome OS being the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject as it is concise and natural and the additional specification that it is "Google" Chrome OS is unnecessary. - SudoGhost 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nom. AQFK (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The company name as more of a prefix is unnecessary. Dolinsky296 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Hardly anyone says "Google Chrome OS". Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per points above. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. The official support forum for Chrome devices also uses the "Chrome OS" terminology several times without the "Google" prefix. CraigTumblison (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canary Channel Discussion
The "Release channels and updates" section of the article currently states that a forth release channel called Canary was introduced in 2013. It has two cited links, one pointing to a code review and the other to a blog. As far as I'm aware, this channel has yet to be made available to the public. There are comments on the Chromium Tracker from Google employees that suggest the channel is actively being used internally (1, 2), but there isn't any way for a non-employee to enable the channel for their own usage (that I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong). Until the channel is released to the public (as of now there has been no official statement that it will be), should the article be changed to reflect the limited availability? CraigTumblison (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the reference, reference for the Canary channel doesn't indicate limited access. If we're going to assert that it's strictly internal, it would be good to have a reference saying so. If there is such a reference, I'd say definitely--it should be included. Otherwise, it violates wp:or. Barte (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Finding a source on the limited availability will be difficult because the Canary Channel has never been officially acknowledged (par a few code mentions that are not, in my opinion, on-the-record statements). Perhaps instead of adding the information about limited availability, the current text should be changed to reflect the pending nature of the release. The cited article makes clear that it hadn't been released at the time of publication, only that code has been discovered that suggests it would be in the future. The article, however, states that it was introduced, which is only factually accurate as far as internal usage is concerned (but again, there isn't a source to cite that says on the record that the channel is even being used internally). CraigTumblison (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and have attempted to edit the paragraph to more closely reflect the actual reference. That cite, linked above, dates back to early February, making it over 5 months old.  At some point, don't we have to conclude that Canary for Chrome OS never happened? If it's a vaporchannel, maybe we should just delete the reference entirely. We can always reinstate it if it actually materializes. Barte (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit is a fantastic improvement over what was previously there, excellent job with the wording. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the idea of a Canary Channel for Chrome OS doesn't quite make sense. You can run two browsers--a stable and a Canary versions.  But two OSs on a standard Chrome OS device sounds dubious. Per the cite: "When the canary build lands on Chrome OS, how will it work? I am not really sure."  Me neither.  It think we should kill it as unfounded speculation.  Barte (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree - it should go. Not well enough explained or supported! - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be in favor of removing it for now, pending more information. The channel is being used internally (1), but I haven't seen any information regarding how exactly it functions, nor do we have a "good" cite to confirm it. If the channel is officially released to the public in the future, that would be the most appropriate time to mention it in the article, in my opinion. CraigTumblison (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed that Canary was not a done deal. Barte (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As of December 2013, the Canary build is indeed confirmed to exist (see here and here) and is confirmed to be capable of being installed, just not easily. 2602:306:BCA6:8300:A9DB:EBA4:5953:3ECE (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Canary channel
Please write about the newly discovered Chrome OS Canary Channel. https://plus.google.com/+FrancoisBeaufort/posts/8PVz5fs47ud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.69.2 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Please note that text has been removed from this article and talk page pursuant to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194 - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the remaining sentence that User:Chromemagnon07 left in, as it's now devoid of context and WP:OR to credit the patent as among the origins of Chrome OS. – Steel 01:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. What was left didn't look obviously tied to this article. We could either start over again with better refs and input or leave it as is now. On Wikipedia it is always better to say nothing than cause anyone harm. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OS inventor?
(Redacted) Off-topic discussion raising WP:BLP issues. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Aura
&hellip;at one point a "hardware-accelerated window manager", then elsewhere, a "hardware-accelerated graphics engine" (the hotlinks here are mine.) Synonymous ? &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ash actually is to Aura what Unity is to Compiz and GNOME Shell is to Mutter: a window manager plugin. Unfortunately, this article isn't really drawing that comparison very well... &mdash;2602:306:BCA6:8300:181:4501:A17D:D427 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can post a reference then that can be added, as per WP:V.- Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Programming languages should include web technologies used
Many of the applications on Chrome OS that come with the operating system are actually programmed using web technologies, so I feel that the programming languages used should include HTML, JavaScript, and NaCl. Alfonsojon (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong image displaying
The image to this article is displaying "Chromium OS". But the title of the article is "Chrome OS". My suggestion is to change to the correct one. This article : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_OS - actually is displaying the correct one "Chrome OS". Why not reuse that image ? 80.62.116.207 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Chromium OS is very similar in functionality and does not contain closed-source material, unlike Chrome OS. I personally believe the Chrome OS screenshot on the simple.wikipedia.org page should be removed as well, as it contains copyrighted material.Alfonsojon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there are multiple third-party extensions installed which does not proprerly represent a stock installation of Chrome OS. A generic screenshot of Chrome OS should be provided if a Chromium OS screenshot is not used.Alfonsojon (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't make decisions here on en.wikipedia for what goes on on simple.wikipedia, but I should note that this article is about Chrome OS, not Chromium OS and the screenshots should be on topic. They are not identical. The fact that Chrome OS screenshots shows copyrighted programs or logos is completely permitted here under "Fair Use". The current image is correct, it is Chrome OS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

libbionic
Is Chrome OS also based on libbionic like Android or does it use glibc for "proper" compatibility with the rest of the Linux kernel-based family of operating systems? User:ScotXW t@lk 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, Chrome OS uses newlib or glibc, at least as far as it's about the Google Native Client; see this document (page 27), for example. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Control via speech recognition
This could be implemented, theoretically using Web Speech API, see Talk:Google_Glass

Perhaps mention in article someway 109.130.224.156 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tone tagging
An editor tagged the "Link handling" section for tone, but provided no clue as to what the identified problem is. Can some explanation be given so this can be addressed? - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! To me, it seems like the section was tagged because it asks questions and provides answers to them, what might be seen as being suggestive.  Perhaps  can confirm whether that was the reason for tagging. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly why I tagged it. The questions and answers seem out of place on an encyclopaedia. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Went ahead and  the section, please check it out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It reads fine now. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Supported architectures
The article (semi-protected, hence not editing myself) lists x86 and arm as supported architectures. Looking at the list of devices, it turns out that x86_64 and aarch64 are supported, too, and it looks like all the 32-bit x86 devices have reached their EOL strongly suggesting that 32-bit x86 is no longer a supported archetecture. Hsivonen (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Major cleanup: January 2019
I've started a major cleanup process for this page, as it is confusing and had repeated sections, etc. I'm going to keep some notes here as I do design.

Lengau (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sections
There are several sections that are candidates for major overhauls, moving, or removal.

History
This section is woefully incomplete and very much out of date. I've added some information dating back to 2011, but there's nothing since April 2012. The content is otherwise high quality.

Major update needed: Up to date content.

Hardware
This section can probably go much further down or even get migrated into other sections. Unsure. Any suggestions from anyone else?

Relationship to Android
This is probably something that should be a subsection of the "Reception" section at the bottom.

Applications
This section needs a major overhaul. It doesn't need to repeat information from the history section and should instead focus on the different classes of application available for Chrome OS.

Design
This section is too long and too piecemeal. It should be separated into an Architecture section, discussing its Linux/X11 base, firmware, Chromium OS, etc., and a User Interface section, containing things like printing, link handling, etc.

Major Releases
A timeline of releases, similar to the Windows page, would probably be a good idea. It should be noted that Chrome OS has far more frequent releases, so it may be prudent to mention only releases with major changes. This would be a much briefer summary of the version history page suggested by, more like what recommended.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chrome OS 71.png

Article Picture
Can I know why there can't be a headline picture/screenshot attached to the article? Since this OS is Linux based like Android, I was thinking there shouldn't be any licensing issues.Alexceltare2 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite being Linux-based, Chrome OS is licenced under Google's Terms of Service and is "all rights reserved". We can still have a screenshot of it here, if someone wants to upload one to en.wikipedia (not Commons) under the "fair use" criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Chrome OS six browsers.png

Reworking the Applications Section on Chrome OS
UnknownInternetCitizen (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I need to ask you for your guidance. On the Applications page, I see the first paragraph is redundant with the Chrome Apps section, I also see the Second paragraph needs to be moved to its own section. and I also see the third paragraph redundant with the Linux Section. The part about why ARC was removed should be moved to the ARC section. That I thought was true. But you seem to reverted everything. I don't understand what do you mean by historical context. Could you please clarify what you are looking for. I won't be making any edits until you respond. UnknownInternetCitizen (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no problem adding new information a refs, just please don't remove the existing information and refs that are already there. Your last edit removed a lot of historical text and refs. Try just adding your new material. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Aura
Can there please be included additional info about Aura? I don't think it's clear from the article whether it's a window manager, graphics engine, or widget toolkit, or perhaps all of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS#Android_applications (second paragraph)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS#Relationship_to_Android (third paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.106.195 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Google purchases Neverware
Any thoughts of the impact of Google's Neverware acquisition here? https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-quietly-buys-company-that-turns-your-old-windows-7-pc-into-chrome-os-machine/

"'As CloudReady becomes an official Chrome OS offering, you can expect the release mechanics to fall in line with official Chrome OS releases,' Neverware notes."

Does that mean that there's now a Google-sanctioned version of Chrome OS that's user-installable? Until now, I think, and per the article, Chrome OS has only been available preinstalled on Chromebooks. Chromium OS isn't mentioned in the article. Barte (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good questions, but not many answers. We may have to wait to see if this needs adding. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading the coverage, I come to the same conclusion. Google hasn't chimed in. The statement in the CloudReady Q&A on the acquisition is hardly definitive. It's something to keep an eye on. Barte (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Move History section to the end
I suspect that the history section of a rapidly changing technology solutions is irrelevant to the majority of readers. I went looking for information, skimming down and after a while realised I was looking at the History section because it was so dated. Solution: Can we move the history section to the bottom because many other articles have history at the bottom.12think (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an encyclopedia, so we focus on history here, which is why it is at the start, to provide context. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, pretty much every Wikipedia page with a "history" section has it near the start (12.191.57.85 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC))

Formatting of "Latest preview" in infobox
This entry contains two invalid description lists abused as fake headings. This is an illegitimate use of description lists; we should be using boldface in an unbulleted list instead. Unfortunately, I can't see how to fix this: the article doesn't introduce them, and is too complex for me to tell how it's introducing them (presumably via Wikidata somehow). Help! Hairy Dude (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's automatically formatted by the template, which extracts the data from Wikidata (found here). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Update Latest OS Version Stamp
I have noticed that my own chromebook has updated to 98.0.4758.107. so the os version stamp and timestamp are now wrong. TheWikiFixerUpperGuy (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)TheWikiFixerUpper.

Applications
Initially, Chrome OS was almost a pure web thin client operating system that relied primarily on servers to host web applications and related data storage. Google gradually began encouraging developers to create "packaged applications", and later, Chrome Apps.In September 2014, Google launched App Runtime for Chrome (beta), which allowed certain ported Android applications to run on Chrome OS. In 2016, Google made the Google Play Store available for Chrome OS, making most Android apps available for supported Chrome OS devices. Google announced in 2018 that Chrome OS would be getting support for desktop Linux apps. This capability was released to the stable channel with Chrome 69 in October 2018, but was still marked as beta.

Chrome Apps
Google has encouraged developers to build not just conventional Web applications for Chrome OS, but Chrome Apps (formerly known as Packaged apps). From a user perspective, Chrome Apps resemble conventional native applications: they can be launched outside of the Chrome browser, are offline by default, can manage multiple windows, and interact with other applications. Technologies employed include HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS. The latter employs HTML5, CSS, Adobe Shockwave, and JavaScript to provide a user experience closer to a native application. Google has decided to remove Chrome Apps for most consumers by June 2021, and for all users by June 2022.

Integrated media player, file manager
Google integrates a media player into both Chrome OS and the Chrome browser, enabling users to play back MP3s, view JPEGs, and handle other multimedia files while offline. It supports DRM videos.

Chrome OS also includes an integrated file manager, resembling those found on other operating systems, with the ability to display directories and the files they contain from both Google Drive and local storage, as well as to preview and manage file contents using a variety of Web applications, including Google Docs and Box. Since January 2015, Chrome OS can also integrate additional storage sources into the file manager, relying on installed extensions that use the File System Provider API.

Remote application access and virtual desktop access
In June 2010, Google software engineer Gary Kačmarčík wrote that Chrome OS will access remote applications through a technology unofficially called "Chromoting", which would resemble Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection. The name has since been changed to "Chrome Remote Desktop", and is like "running an application via Remote Desktop Services or by first connecting to a host machine by using RDP or VNC". Initial roll-outs of Chrome OS laptops (Chromebooks) indicate an interest in enabling users to access virtual desktops.

App Runtime for Chrome (ARC)
At Google I/O 2014, a proof of concept showing Android applications, including Flipboard, running on Chrome OS was presented. In September 2014, Google introduced a beta version of the App Runtime for Chrome (ARC), which allows selected Android applications to be used on Chrome OS, using a Native Client-based environment that provides the platforms necessary to run Android software. Runtime was launched with four Android applications: Duolingo, Evernote, Sight Words, and Vine. Android applications do not require any modifications to run on Chrome OS, but may be modified to better support a mouse and keyboard environment. At its introduction, Chrome OS support was only available for selected Android applications. Engineering director Zelidrag Hornung explained that ARC had been scrapped due to its limitations, including its incompatibility with the Android Native Development Toolkit (NDK), and that it was unable to pass Google's own compatibility test suite.

Play Store
In 2016, Google introduced the ability to run Android apps on supported Chrome OS devices, with access to the entire Google Play Store. The previous Native Client-based solution was dropped in favor of a container containing Android's frameworks and dependencies (initially based on Android Marshmallow), which allows Android apps to have direct access to the Chrome OS platform, and allow the OS to interact with Android contracts such as sharing.

Linux Apps
Since 2013, it has been possible to run Linux applications in Chrome OS through the use of Crouton, a third-party set of scripts that allows access to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu. However, in 2018 Google announced that desktop Linux apps were officially coming to Chrome OS. The main benefit claimed by Google of their official Linux application support is that it can run without enabling developer mode, keeping many of the security features of Chrome OS. It was noticed in the Chromium OS source code in early 2018. Early parts of Crostini were made available for the Google Pixelbook via the dev channel in February 2018 as part of Chrome OS version 66, and it was enabled by default via the beta channel for testing on a variety of chromebooks in August 2018 with version 69.


 * ❌ I tried to diff the two texts and it is not clear to me that this would be an improvement. Please be more specific in your request. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Chromeosver1012.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Chromebook CR-48.jpg

"Chrome OS" to "ChromeOS"
Should we update this page to reflect recent changes made by Google: https://9to5google.com/2022/03/15/google-prepares-chromeos-rebrand-to-drop-the-space/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.128.218 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the source you cited says "Given the timing of the code change, it’s likely we won’t see this widespread rebranding of Chrome OS to "ChromeOS" until version 102, set to arrive in late May", so yes but not until it actually happens. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should this be done now since the changes have happened and ChromeOS 102 is released? - RadioactiveFox (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Got a ref that says this actually did happen? - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually not sure, the google support site still calls it Chrome OS, and according to Android Police it is only labeled "ChromeOS" in the Canary version right now, so maybe wait until official google sources call it ChromeOS? RadioactiveFox (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that is a good illustration of why we wait for reliable sources for changes like this! - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a stylization, not a name change. Adoption seems to be limited anyway, so I would hold off on any changes to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: The Verge has just confirmed that the branding change is now official. I will move this page shortly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Update ChromeOS latest version.
104.0.5112.105 to 104.0.5112.110 As of Today 8/29/22 at 5:58 PM (Pacific Daylight UTC) TheWikiFixerUpperGuy (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)TheWikiFixerUpperGuy (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You can take care of that yourself at: Template:Latest stable software release/ChromeOS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ChromeOS is not Linux
FYI, ChromeOS is not Linux, it does use the Linux kernel, but IMHO (and many people's opinions, if not as a fact) it is not a Linux distro Eteled286 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article does not currently label ChromeOS as a Linux distribution, but notes it is based on the Linux kernel, which is factually accurate. We do not care about the opinions of editors here on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say. Here is one very recent RS that says that the issue of whether Chrome OS is a Linux distribution is complicated, debatable and depends most on semantics: Is Chrome OS Desktop Linux? 8 Points to Consider. I don't see any reason that this article needs to wade into that argument on either side. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated Infobox to recent screen shot
Updated the InfoBox to the most recent ChromeOS 113.0.5672.114 and a new picture (very minor changes were made to the home screen) Goofyquandale (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had to remove your image and tag it on Commons for speedy deletion. You uploaded the screenshot under a free licence, claiming it was your own work. That is a violation of US copyright law, as ChromeOS is not your work, it belongs to Google and is released under a restrictive proprietary licence as the article here describes, which is why the existing image is hosted on Wikipedia (not Commons) and under "fair use'. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)