Unfortunately one of the main reason for running windows over an open source alternative is for playing games, even on netbooks. But it's a bit naive to think it just wont get viruses.
Quote from anandtech.com: "The single most important thing to take from this announcement right now is just what Chrome OS will do. It won’t run an email client, it won’t run an office suite, and it won’t run games – it will only run Google Chrome. It’s Linux stripped to the bone, left with just enough to run Chrome, and nothing more."
To be honest some evil virus writers might just start bombing that OS just for because Google thinks it can make so secure OS.
If Google can get the sandbox concept working the way it's theoritically written, it should work really well against virus writers. deltatux
If the OS is going to be anywhere near as good as the Chrome Web Browser I'd totally give it a shot. Unfortunately it's at least another 14 months away.
Google's Schmidt initially opposed to Chrome, says Microsoft is welcome to port Internet Explorer on over
Despite sandbox concept, there were exploits for Chrome. However, if they make system that runs Chrome, Chrome and only Chrome, it may be incapable of running viruses. My Atom-powered netbook runs Windows 7 Ultimate RC fine, with Visual Studio 2008 and SQL Server 2008. I have yet to install Firefox on it. There's really no need for Google OS. If you don't want viruses on your Windows, just keep the system & browsers updated and don't download/run cracks & stuff spammed on your messenger programs. Outdated Linux computer where user has admin rights and runs risky software is by no means more secure. If you want a Windows alternative, there are a lot of Linux distributions, both for tweakers and people who just want to get thing that works.
