Mark Milian and Harry McCracken have been collecting the murder evidence, which has been mounting for months:

• Gears is not supported in Mac versions of Chrome
• Standalone Gears is not supported in Snow Leopard, months after release
• Google's been evasive about Gears support in Chrome OS, even though offline web apps are a vital part of it
• Google hasn't announced a new Gears-compatible product in months

All this is decidedly circumstantial, but it hints that Google is planning to wait to HTML5, which supports a lot of the same offline features as Gears, before putting all their eggs in one basket. Then, this:

We're continuing to support Gears so that nothing breaks for sites that use it. But we expect developers to use HTML5 for these features moving forward as it's a standards-based approach that will be available across all browsers.

This is directly from Google in response to Milian's post, and stops short of kicking Gears to the curb, but only just. Here's what it really means: Google will quietly move away from Gears, let it live out its life in comfort, and after starting a beautiful family with HTML5, pretend that it never existed. [LAT, Technologizer]

Wi-Fi is a little wonky, but otherwise, it should be totally fine. Just plug the flash drive with the image into the 10v, and you should be able to boot right into Chrome OS. The usual pre-beta caveats of stuff breaking, etc., apply, of course. [Direct Download, Dell via Liliputing via Download Squad]

Google, asked how on earth this slow-motion, oddly-planned scenario would play out, gives mixed responses. The official PR line, when asked about the merger:

[W]e're reaching a perfect storm of converging trends where computers are behaving more like mobile devices, and phones are behaving more like small computers. Having two open source operating systems from Google provides both users and device manufacturers with more choice and helps contribute a wealth of new code to the open source community.

There, perfect: acknowledge that your boss's sentiment is true, but deny any specific plans. But what about when CNET asks Schmidt directly? Observe:

The future will unfold as it does.

There it is! When these guys are talking about Chrome and Android merging, they're not talking about any kind of roadmap, they're just speaking in obvious, unusually long-term truisms, like they've been doing an awful lot lately: Two Linux-based operating systems from one company are bound to develop similarities; eventually, our computing usage will be totally centered around the web; in a decade, our notebooks and cellphones will probably be one device; the future is awesome; etcetera.

This Zen futurism is charming and all, but Chrome OS and Android aren't uncontrollable entities—they don't need to be crudely estimated, or attributed some kind of autonomy, especially by the people that make them. Specifically, they need to be planned. [CNET via Download Squad via Engadget]

1. First and foremost, do you "get" what Google is trying do do here? Does it make sense? Is it a good idea?

2. Google OS will be available first on netbooks, and only netbooks starting in a year. Do you think netbooks will even be relevant a year from now?

3. Google also mentions that the first generation of the Chrome OS will focus on secondary machines. Do you even have a need for a secondary machine, or is one computer with a traditional OS enough?

4. Google notes that web browsing is the most important function of a computer . Without it, many of us probably wouldn't use a computer for much in the first place. So my question is, how much of your time spend on a computer is completely offline?

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Chrome OS 1.0. You can build that now and (maybe) install it on your netbook, and should be able to buy on hardware next year. All that stuff is, to borrow a word that Google loves to misuse, is a beta. A test. A trial. A first step toward a larger vision, which Google has been hinting at since they branched out from search: In the future, we will live on the internet. We'll be able to do all the things we do on computers now, and probably more, while connected to the cloud. And it'll be great.

Chrome OS is an explicit step towards making this happen, but the version we saw today is just an early, broad step. Google even said so! Despite early talk about how Chrome OS could be a full replacement OS one day, suitable for regular ol' laptops and desktops, today's preannouncement of a version strictly for netbooks included an admission that it would only be intended as a secondary OS. So, what does Google need to see this thing through, and make Chrome as capable as the OSes we're used to using now? Lots:

The Internet Needs to Get Way, Way Faster

And I'm not just talking about higher bandwidth. Broadband connections are pretty quick nowadays, but compared to reading—and especially writing—data to a hard drive, sending bits over the internet is excruciatingly slow. And Chrome OS isn't even really a true web OS: it'll slurp the guts of larger web applications like Gmail and Gcal and effectively make them local, meaning that the kinds of tasks that require low latency and fast load times will run tolerably.

That kind of local storage, along with Javascript technologies like AJAX, is a salve. We need them because communicating with a server for every event in an application would take forever, and make using them miserable. Remember how webmail used to be, before it got all AJAXy? Awful. And it still would be, if not for recent Javascript advances and local storage.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making web apps local, and Chrome OS will keep doing that forever: it's the only way Chrome OS can work offline. But that doesn't cover everything. What about high-bandwidth tasks like photo and video editing? To do it the way they suggest would require constant syncing between local memory and a remote server. These are basic tasks for a computer. Basic tasks that'll be impossible on Chrome until super-low-latency, 100mbps+ broadband is commonplace, and not only commonplace, but wireless and effectively ubiquitous. That's quite a few years away, even by generous estimates.

Web Apps Will Need To Get Much Better

I'm sure Gmail, Google Reader and Google Calendar will be totally swell in Chrome OS. They're some of the most feature-complete web apps in the world, and they're good enough to replace desktop apps for most people. But what about VoIP apps? Torrent clients? Media players? Image editors? Video editors? There are web apps for almost all of these things, but collectively, they amount to a big bag of dick. Trimming videos with YouTube's tools is nothing like editing them in Final Cut, or even iMovie. Cropping a few images in an online photo editor and playing with their contrast is fine, but what about my bloated Sony RAW files? There are still some massive gaps in the web app world, hence Google's repeated, vague pleas for developers to do better, alright?

Web Standards Will Have To Evolve, Fast

Google wants to replace regular apps with web apps by making web apps more like native apps, in concept and execution. Eventually, the hope is that they could use the new features of HTML5, like local storage, drag and drop, canvas drawing, native animation and location awareness, to have all the powers of a native app. Thing is, HTML5 is just a stepping stone; it'll take more than a few new HTML tags to pave the way for honestly native-seeming applications.

Google's obviously got a lot of leverage over standards bodies like the WHATWG and W3C, so they could help move new HTML capabilities along in theory. But even HTML5 is brand new, and very few people are using that. It'll be at least another generation before developers will be able to code native-equivalent apps in web languages, and that's assuming that standards development keeps heading in that direction. Which it might not.

Someone's Going to Have To Solve the UI Problem

Talking about Chrome OS's interface almost seems like a waste of breath, since your real UI is the internet, which is the very definition of inconsistent. Part of the reason email apps, Twitter apps IM clients, and the like are still so popular is because they offer services that people want in an interface that's consistent with the rest of their system. Web apps offer no such thing.

Sure, if all you use are Google products, you're fine: Your life is blue, white, boxy and clean. But what about when you want to jump over to Meebo? Or Aviary? This kind of inconsistency wouldn't be acceptable in another OS, so it would feel like a compromise here. I suppose you could use tools like Greasemonkey to reformat pages on the client side, but this is hacky and, well, lots of work. We'd need some kind of framework for skins, or something, to make the experience more uniform.

People Will Have To Give Up On Owning Media, an Get Comfortable With Subscription Services

People need their music and videos, and now, most people have collections. That's sooooooo 2009, am I right? For Chrome OS to work, people are going to have warm up to subscription services and streaming media.

Before you get mad at me, forget about Rhapsody and Napster, and think more about your cable company, your wireless company, or your beloved Netflix. Those work, and these kinds of arrangements are going to have to be extended to all media. Which is possible, but also fraught, since you really won't own your media.

The Rest of the (Browser) World Has To Be Onboard

During the announcement, Google made the point that the Chrome browser in Chrome OS won't have any special talents that Chrome elsewhere won't, and that at present it's no more able—in terms of what kinds of web apps it can run—than, say, Firefox. Nobody's going to want to write web apps just for Chrome (that would make them Chrome apps, right?), so it's vital that other browsers support the same new HTML standards that Chrome needs to succeed. Google can go all out supporting the latest, greatest web standards, but unless everyone else does too, nobody—not even Google—is going to write for them.

None of these things are impossible; in fact, most of them sort of feel inevitable, given that they're all just extrapolations of obvious trends from the last few years. They're just optimistic, and sit well in the future. Chrome OS can carry out Google's LET'S ALL LIVE ON THE INTERNET vision when the conditions are right, eventually. But these are long-term bets, measured in years.

That might make sense to a room full of Google engineers. To the rest of us, though? It's abstract. It's strange. It seems gimped. It's largely irrelevant, and it's not all that exciting. Yet.

Google Chrome OS UI Concept Video

It looks very similar to what everyone imagined. I'm glad we are moving into single-window, task-oriented environments.

Everything you need to know about Google here.

According to Techcrunch this isn't really a launch, but rathe a chance to give us a first look at the OS, and for Google to detail their actual launch plans (we've been sitting tight with the "late 2010" projection from the initial announcement):

The plan is to give some technical background information as well as show off some demos, we're told. More notably, they will be giving a "complete overview" of the new OS, which they say will launch next year.

Knowing what Chrome OS will look like is only half the fun anyway—three months after it was announced, we still don't really know what the hell it is, or how it's going to work. Soon! [Techcrunch]

Previously, Google had set the release date had been set roughly at H2 of 2010. In their words,

[T]he first netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010

Of course, that's when a dedicated product will launch, as in, a netbook from a prominent manufacturer running Chrome OS as sold. But Google did go on to say in the same announcement that that they'd "soon be working with the open source community," after which Eric Schmidt dropped a few hints that we could see Chrome OS, most likely in beta form, "as early as this year." So, that brings us to the new rumor: TechCrunch has it from a "reliable source" that we'll see Chrome OS within a week, available as a download. It'll have limited driver support, meaning Google will only endorse installation on a limited number of computers—mostly netbooks—including a number of Eee PCs.

The obvious question now is what will it look like, though I'd like to remind you that, in all likelihood we've been given a pretty good preview: Remember the version of Chrome browser for Chrome OS that leaked for Linux machines a few weeks ago? It had (or has, above) a nonoperational Start-style button, a clock embedded in the title bar, and a minimalist interface, and it's probably a pretty good indicator as to where Google's going with this. [TechCrunch]

I've been running the nightly Chromium builds as our secondary browser to Firefox, and it's been spiffy, if you're particularly impatient. [Cnet]

The list includes tricks for assigning application shortcuts, search engine keywords, customizations, mouse and keyboard shortcuts as well as several tricks for people using dev builds. Hit the link for the full details. [Lifehacker]

No, it's not Explorer. Originally, Microsoft wanted to order browsers from left to right in order of market share. That meant Explorer was going to go first, then Firefox, then Safari, Opera, and Google's Chrome. The EU objected, so Microsoft complied and offered a very reasonable solution: Alphabetical order.

That puts Apple Safari in the number one position, followed by Google Chrome, Microsoft Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Opera. Looks good enough to me, but Jenny Boriss—a Firefox user experience designer—disagrees:

This ordering is about the worst option possible. Microsoft wrote in their proposal that 'nothing in the design and implementation of the Ballot Screen and the presentation of competing web browsers will express a bias for a Microsoft web browser or any other web browser,' but this is exactly what the current design does. Windows users presented with the current design will tend to make only two choices: IE because they are familiar with it, or Safari because it is the first item.

The disproportionate advantage to Safari is what really makes this design poor," she said, citing several studies that claim first position in a ballot gives an advantage, in part because Western voters scan from upper left to lower right when they read.

She goes on and on and on about this, but her basic message is: If Firefox is not first, this design is BAD. She timidly proposes a random order every time the selection screen opens, but she argues that this is bad because "unfortunately does not provide users with any information about what browsers are preferred" (according to who, Jenny? Maybe user would prefer Safari over Firefox—I know I do. Or maybe they would prefer Chrome if they could try it, as it seems to be a lot faster than Firefox).

Then she shows her true colors, proposing the order according to market share—what Microsoft proposed—but excluding Explorer from that ordering and leaving it to the last position. Wouldn't that be unfairly helping Firefox and putting Safari, Chrome, and Opera in a bad position? And why discriminate Microsoft Explorer too?

Finally, she also proposes probability ordering by market share excluding Internet Explorer, which again gives Firefox the advantage over the rest 50% of the time.

In other words, Microsoft and the EU should help Firefox to become the new monopolistic browser, no matter what. Jenny, please: Stop. Saying. Words. [Boriss' Blog via Computer World]

The only file you can really do anything is is a .deb—that's a Debian-based Linux installer package—meaning that Debian (and Ubuntu) users can install it with a few clicks. On Ubuntu 9 I got a dependency issue when I tried to install, but is was easy to fix: I just enabled the Universe and Multiverse repositories in Synaptic, and upgraded the library it told me too.

As for the browser itself, it's not unlike regular Chrome, barring a few telling differences. For one, the clock is on display in the titlebar, as if this browser is going to be the only app you see when using Chrome OS. There's also a frustratingly enigmatic little Google logo in the top left corner, which looks like a menu. When you click it, it pops up with a prompt to log in with an @google.com email address. Oh well. In any case, downloads are still working from here; feel free to post more mirrors in the comments. [Living in a Google World via Techcrunch]

Google warns that the early access developer release "still lacks certain privacy features, and is not appropriate for general consumer use." Fair enough, but if you're just dicking around and want to get a feel for the interface and speed (which we like), it's good enough now you can watch Hulu and do everyday without crashies (though you might see some weird drawing errors when there's Flash involved).

You can also try the nightly builds of Chromium (the open source part of Chrome, essentially). Just don't cry if you run into any bugs, 'cause we're not even talking beta here, k? [Direct Download (DMG file), Chrome Dev Channel, Chromium Builds]

While you won't see a majority of the art (because, you know, you're actually looking at webpages), it's reassuring just to know it's there, lurking and judging. [Google via the newsmarket]

The Chrome Frame allows IE to use HTML5 and other open source technologies, including high performance JavaScript enhancements, that Internet Explorer's Trident Engine is unable to render. One of the largest barriers to the mass utilization of HTML5 was IE's lack of support for the standard. When people install the plug-in, and developers add a X-UA compatible tag, websites can have HTML5 elements without sacrificing losing a large segment of the potential user base. Without the X-UA tag, pages render normally using the Trident engine instead of the WebKit Chrome renderer.

One of the major advantages for Google in issuing the plug-in is ensuring IE compatibility for Google Wave. Users with the plug-in will also have the benefits of offline storage and utilization of the canvas tag. It's no secret that Google believes that the traditional desktop base is going the way of the dinosaur—making HTML5 and enhanced JavaScript a ubiquitous standard is the first step to emulating desktop environment via the web.

OK, great. Now let's see how many of the IT departments that refuse to upgrade from IE6 allow their users to install some crazy Google plug-in. [Ars Technica and Google Chrome Blog]