Chrome OS To Support "Legacy" PC Apps Through Remote Access

adeelarshad82 writes "According to a message posted to a public mailing list dedicated to Chrome OS, a new feature is in the works that will grant users access to 'legacy PC applications' through some kind of remote desktop connection process. Google software engineer Gary Kamark, who first spilled the beans on the feature, calls the process 'Chromoting.' The current speculation amongst Chrome enthusiasts is that the Chromoting process is more akin to a VPN/sharing functionality than anything else. In that case, one would have to leave one's Windows-based desktop or laptop system on in order to access apps via a connected Chrome OS computer — which is hardly a technological leap given that numerous applications today offer users an analogous screen-sharing / remote access functionality."

news at eleven

[crunzh]

Oh, they intend to implement remote control of another computer functionality. Whats the news in this, you can even do this on a iphone!

Re:news at eleven

[ronocdh]

I think the idea here is to provide attractive functionality at a disguised cost. Once Apple switched over to Intel processors, anyone could run Windows on their Macs. But hardly anyone did, because who wants to reboot so often?

This will be touted the same way: "Keep your Windows apps!" But in the end, everyone will wind up using Google Docs, Gmail, etc. And that's just how Google wants it.

Bored with all the Google hype

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting really bored with all the hype flowing from Google lately. What with Chrome OS and Google TV, there seems to be an awful lot of fuss being made over what in both cases is essentially vaporware. Anyone having tried the latest Chromium OS builds (the code base from which Chrome OS will be built) will see that this project has a very long way to go before it is anything like usable.

FreeNX

[CdBee]

I suspect this is another outing for Google's NeatX FreeNX Server [techworld.com.au]

If they make it go through their authentication systems instead of publishing an external IP address that could be a lot safer - ie, as long as the computer's properly protected and access is limited to the appropriate IP range it shouldnt pose any greater risk than running a legacy app on a computer you're sitting at

But aim it at mums, dads, and other non-techies..

[djsmiley]

"which is hardly a technological leap given that numerous applications today offer users an analogous screen-sharing / remote access functionality."

This would be true, if Apple couldn't sell a new version of phone even with the fact it can't play mp3s as ringtones.

Why remote access seems to every techie the most normal thing in the world, its a whole different ball game getting it to a level in which my mum can understand it. If they can get this right then she wont care that she could of done it 10 years ago with some other software.

Re:VNC

[Darkness404]

Does it -need- to be done though? We could also implement VNC running through WINE piping output through a serial port being encoded by an Arduno and then sent back upside down which is in turn flipped over by a BASIC script. That doesn't mean that it is always a good idea to do things a weird way when native apps usually work better.

Re:FreeNX

[nurb432]

Tho it appears there is still no windows server. Gonna need that before its a viable solution.

Re:which is hardly a technological leap

[Anonymous Coward]

It's exactly the sort of leap that Apple inexplicably get a good press for doing, even though they're not first either. Even nerds aren't interested in `first` or `advanced` any more - it's got to be easy.

You make it sound like the "easy" requirement is new. A technology that a person can't actually use has always been worthless to that person. There is nothing inexplicable about that.

Re:But aim it at mums, dads, and other non-techies

[fermion]

I think what Google is doing is providing technology is average users that can be supported by a primarily ad based model. Google grew up in time when the world was becoming wired up, and Google was able to use that increased networking, primarily paid for by external public and private sources, to grow a business model. In a fully connected world, with clock cycles costing infinitesimal amounts of money, it is now possible to provide centralized compter resources in exchange for ads. This provides value to the end user as he or she no longer needs to administer the resources. The technological advance, as in so many cases of large companies, is the ability to deliver a service at a lower cost.

This was what MS did in the days prior to the widespread internet. It provided software, only some of which was purchased, that could be freely installed on business machines. This provided an alternative to Unix hardware and software, all which had to be paid for, often at what we would now consider exorbitant prices. Of course, there were things that MS stuff could not do. We have gone full circle in that MS now wants $500 for software, while Apple is selling software for $30, and most stuff for Unix is free.

What people want is service, the technical details are of little concern. I can change any song into a ringtone for my iPhone. The fact that it is a fake m4a instead of an mp3 is of no concern. What is of a concern is that ringtones have never cost me a thing on the iPhone. If I am looking at $100 for a fake copy of MS Office, and $300 for MS Windows that will constantly hound me to prove that it is a legitimate copy, then perhaps running a copy of chrome with Google hosting all my documents is a rational thing to do. We can complain that it old tech, but it is only the early adopters that a fetishizing new tech enough to actually spend huge amounts of money on it.

Re:Put another way

[Anonymous Coward]

> All the goodness of Linux with a measure of "backwards compatibility" - because that is what general users want.

Nah. What general users want is Windows.