What would MS do?
Some say by year 2010 , we will see a GooOS, but how does that affect the evolution of the software culture?
-
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
-
SecretSoftware wrote:What wouls MS do?
Some say by year 2010 , we will see a GooOS, but how does that affect the evolution of the software culture?
Check this here
-
It's a totally baseless rumor. Simply put, I heard straight from a Google VP that they're not making an operating system.
I don't think they have the engineering ability to do it. Unless they intend on writing an OS with Python, Javascript, and rebranded code from acquired companies.
Or, they could take their "Summer of Code" interns and make an OS, sweatshop style.
-
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
DigitalDud wrote:
It's a totally baseless rumor. Simply put, I heard straight from a Google VP that they're not making an operating system.
I don't think they have the engineering ability to do it. Unless they intend on writing an OS with Python, Javascript, and rebranded code from acquired companies.
Or, they could take their "Summer of Code" interns and make an OS, sweatshop style.
LOL. What , there are no assembly language programmers out there? Sure they can write a Google compiler.
But you know, the google share now is somewhere near $600 its big. And the chatter is that they are going to stick their fingers into every thing, from OS to web Utilities , you name it.
But maybe they are secretive about this stuff for some *unknown* reason?
But if Google made an OS, would people use it? or they will just use Windows ? -
Jason Cox
Longtime C9 Lurker
A Google OS... Talk about a never ending [beta].
Google OS would be more of a threat to Apple then to Microsoft. I dont even see a Google OS threating the big Linux distros.
Businesses would never adopt it, because hey, Google makes all their money on mining data and displaying advertising, I'd be leary to every deploy a Google operating system in an enterprise enviorment, we dont even allow Google Toolbar or Google Desktop where I work.
Consumers might pick up on it for awhile just because of brand name recognition, buying a computer that has the Google logo plastered all over it, but in the end you'd have the same problem the Mac has, you see it all over the TV being made to look 'cool' and then 'user x' gets it home only to find that it doesnt work at all like Windows does and none of their software works.
I also see the entire tech crowd not picking up on it. A Google OS sounds cool now, but looking at Google's track record for releasing lack-luster products, we all know the Google OS, if released, would look pre-Windows 3.1 -
2004 called, it wants all its I-have-a-theory-about-Google posts back.arunpv wrote:
SecretSoftware wrote: What wouls MS do?
Some say by year 2010 , we will see a GooOS, but how does that affect the evolution of the software culture?
Check this here
I think that back in 2004 Google was Microsoft's boggart (and to a lesser extent, the industry's as a whole). No matter your division, your product, your feature - Google was working on something you just knew copied all your strengths and fixed all your weaknesses. Whatever it was, they were doing it in secret, they had a better plan, and you were just waiting for the day Google jumped out at you with it.
Your worst nightmare, personified as it were.
Google thrived for quite a while on this culture of fear, both in recruiting and stock price.
It's 2006 now, and Google still hasn't created a revenue source beyond advertising. I suppose it's possible they have a secret lab buried closer to the core of the earth (powered by cold fusion, I'm sure) where they cackle with glee as they behold the power of the GooOS, waiting to unleash it on the world.
The rest of us are still waiting. -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
Jason Cox wrote:A Google OS... Talk about a never ending [beta].
Google OS would be more of a threat to Apple then to Microsoft. I dont even see a Google OS threating the big Linux distros.
Businesses would never adopt it, because hey, Google makes all their money on mining data and displaying advertising, I'd be leary to every deploy a Google operating system in an enterprise enviorment, we dont even allow Google Toolbar or Google Desktop where I work.
Consumers might pick up on it for awhile just because of brand name recognition, buying a computer that has the Google logo plastered all over it, but in the end you'd have the same problem the Mac has, you see it all over the TV being made to look 'cool' and then 'user x' gets it home only to find that it doesnt work at all like Windows does and none of their software works.
I also see the entire tech crowd not picking up on it. A Google OS sounds cool now, but looking at Google's track record for releasing lack-luster products, we all know the Google OS, if released, would look pre-Windows 3.1
But why think in that line of thinking? Google did produce one of the best general purpose search engines known todate. When you enounter error # 12345, you are more likely to google it rather than to Live search it. so they were/are successful at producing something that works.
I remember the first time I used google, and I loved it because it had no ads (at the time) and it was simple and to the point. I got better quality results for a query than using MS's search or Yahoo's or AltaVista's.
So maybe they will do the same with OSs? -
BruceMorgan wrote:
Ok, now I have this image of Steve Balmer looking at Google Spreadsheet saying "Ridiculous" whilst the Excel team roll around in laughter....
-
What is it you expect them to do? Make a "simple and to the point" OS? What does that look like?SecretSoftware wrote:But why think in that line of thinking? Google did produce one of the best general purpose search engines known todate. When you enounter error # 12345, you are more likely to google it rather than to Live search it. so they were/are successful at producing something that works.
I remember the first time I used google, and I loved it because it had no ads (at the time) and it was simple and to the point. I got better quality results for a query than using MS's search or Yahoo's or AltaVista's.
So maybe they will do the same with OSs? -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
AndyC wrote:
BruceMorgan wrote:
I think that back in 2004 Google was Microsoft's boggart
Ok, now I have this image of Steve Balmer looking at Google Spreadsheet saying "Ridiculous" whilst the Excel team roll around in laughter....
LOL! -
Jason Cox
Longtime C9 Lurker
When Google's search engine first came online, I cant argue with you, it was *the best* avalible, the problem now is that while I can search for something on Google and get 25-million results, with only maybe 500 of those being relavent while I can search for the same thing on Live, Yahoo or Ask, get less results but each result is more relavent to the query.SecretSoftware wrote:
But why think in that line of thinking? Google did produce one of the best general purpose search engines known todate. When you enounter error # 12345, you are more likely to google it rather than to Live search it. so they were/are successful at producing something that works.
I remember the first time I used google, and I loved it because it had no ads (at the time) and it was simple and to the point. I got better quality results for a query than using MS's search or Yahoo's or AltaVista's.
So maybe they will do the same with OSs?
I just dont see Google doing a barebones OS and suceeding, people expect too much from the OS out of the box, just look at Windows or the popular Linux distros and how much stuff you get in addition to the OS itself. GoogleTalk is a good example of how too much simplicity can kill a product. -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
BruceMorgan wrote:
What is it you expect them to do? Make a "simple and to the point" OS? What does that look like?SecretSoftware wrote: But why think in that line of thinking? Google did produce one of the best general purpose search engines known todate. When you enounter error # 12345, you are more likely to google it rather than to Live search it. so they were/are successful at producing something that works.
I remember the first time I used google, and I loved it because it had no ads (at the time) and it was simple and to the point. I got better quality results for a query than using MS's search or Yahoo's or AltaVista's.
So maybe they will do the same with OSs?
Well Let me explain:
Windows itself is a complex OS, Its like spaghetti, it takes alot of space and memory to run plus its not as secure as one would like it to be.
The average user wants to do work (type official documents, plot mathematical things, listen to music, watch movies, talk to friends) That is what they do. Why do we need a say 2.5 GB OS , that eats up your ram , that hangs, that has alot of unneeded "beauty supplies", and one whose performance degrades over time?
I think , knowing the trend of Google software, they will produce an OS that is considerably smaller in size, that has "fewer beauty supplies in it" and that is performant and does not degrade over time. That has an efficient and easy and simple UI, and most of its components function independantly of one another, yet still are able to communicate and get feedback from other system components.
I got to admit, there are alot of useless features in windows that most users dont even know exist , and that are just running without being used in the background.
So some people are looking for a new flavor, and a new level of performance using their existing hardware. Customers dont really have infinate number of resources.
So, something simply simple, and to the point. -
jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com
SecretSoftware,
Windows has a lot of "useless" features because one man's trash is another man's treasure. I would consider Windows Pinball useless...yet some kid down the road loves it (In Highschool I played it religiously in shop-class).
Some people consider notepad useless...afterall, they prefer Word, or Wordpad. I enjoy notepad because it's simple, and versatile. Yet, if I want to use RTF I need to use word. So which one is useless? Depends on who you ask - ask me and I'll tell you neither is useless.
I would consider the classic-windows desktop useless in XP. I prefer the new XP look to the old classic look. Yet a large company who ugrades to XP, but is having emplolyee-difficulties getting use to the new UI will find the classic-view very useful. I think it's useless, they don't.
Having the ability to Switch my Colors from 32-Bit to 256 Colors. Useless? Depends on who you ask. Switching my screen-size, useless? Depends on who you ask. I think the 3.5 drive is obsolete and useless, but MS doesn't develop computers for me. They develop them for the world, and the world wants many different things.
You try to design an OS under 2GB that pleases the majority, and I think you will find that it is not as easily done as you would presume.
Jonathan -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
Jason Cox wrote:
When Google's search engine first came online, I cant argue with you, it was *the best* avalible, the problem now is that while I can search for something on Google and get 25-million results, with only maybe 500 of those being relavent while I can search for the same thing on Live, Yahoo or Ask, get less results but each result is more relavent to the query.SecretSoftware wrote:
But why think in that line of thinking? Google did produce one of the best general purpose search engines known todate. When you enounter error # 12345, you are more likely to google it rather than to Live search it. so they were/are successful at producing something that works.
I remember the first time I used google, and I loved it because it had no ads (at the time) and it was simple and to the point. I got better quality results for a query than using MS's search or Yahoo's or AltaVista's.
So maybe they will do the same with OSs?
I just dont see Google doing a barebones OS and suceeding, people expect too much from the OS out of the box, just look at Windows or the popular Linux distros and how much stuff you get in addition to the OS itself. GoogleTalk is a good example of how too much simplicity can kill a product.
I have used GoogleTalk. Its simple and easy to use, and get the job done. Its not as memory thirsty as Windows Live Messenger. ITs a light weight solution to messenging.
I rather disagree that simplicity kills a porduct. Once you start with few features its better than just loading a product with features that might become useless. Google adapsts to market needs. They use the "needs drives development" ideology. That is why people fall in love with their products.
With MS, all the quality assurances, and the fuss about a new product, makes for an overkill to the point that the user is overloaded, and is at the end confused about what a particular product is supposed to do.
Take for example the Office Suite 2007 product. There are features in there that even I dont know any thing about. Much less my 88 year old grandmother. Hence she will never use them becuase she does not understand what they do, and to understand what these features do you have to read manuals, and quite frankely no one has the time to sit and read books on how a particular feature works.
So MS ends up complicating the product and confusing the user. I am talking from experiance here. Simplicity is the best thing a product has to offer, and that is what Google is good at. -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
jsampsonPC wrote:SecretSoftware,
Windows has a lot of "useless" features because one man's trash is another man's treasure. I would consider Windows Pinball useless...yet some kid down the road loves it (In Highschool I played it religiously in shop-class).
Some people consider notepad useless...afterall, they prefer Word, or Wordpad. I enjoy notepad because it's simple, and versatile. Yet, if I want to use RTF I need to use word. So which one is useless? Depends on who you ask - ask me and I'll tell you neither is useless.
I would consider the classic-windows desktop useless in XP. I prefer the new XP look to the old classic look. Yet a large company who ugrades to XP, but is having emplolyee-difficulties getting use to the new UI will find the classic-view very useful. I think it's useless, they don't.
Having the ability to Switch my Colors from 32-Bit to 256 Colors. Useless? Depends on who you ask. Switching my screen-size, useless? Depends on who you ask. I think the 3.5 drive is obsolete and useless, but MS doesn't develop computers for me. They develop them for the world, and the world wants many different things.
You try to design an OS under 2GB that pleases the majority, and I think you will find that it is not as easily done as you would presume.
Jonathan
Okay, You and I can agree that different users care about different features in a product. But that does not mean that the vendor has to load all the features and let the user "use" the ones that they like and "leave" the ones that they consider useless, sitting somewhere in their hard drive eating precious space?
Let me ask you why FireFox for example rocked? Why millions left IE6 and went over to FireFox? Because firefox allows you to customize it. It only installs the basic browser, and there is an "add -in " feature where you add in what you like.
What I am getting at in this example is that , MS needs to let people customize their products the way they see fit. So if I want a game, Ijust donwload it off MS website and that is that. Dont include it with Windows as a whole.
Google would go that direction. Just install basic nessessities and then let the user add in things they want as they see fit. So they end up with a custome OS with only the stuff they need, and want to fit their work, study , what ever needs.
The basic OS would install in under 10 mins, and you add stuff you are interested in on your own, much like you add add-ins with firefox. Now isnt that better? Doesnt that make people happy? -
Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin
SecretSoftware wrote:
The basic OS would install in under 10 mins, and you add stuff you are interested in on your own, much like you add add-ins with firefox. Now isnt that better? Doesnt that make people happy?
But how would the user know what's out there to add? -
SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.
Harlequin wrote:
SecretSoftware wrote:
The basic OS would install in under 10 mins, and you add stuff you are interested in on your own, much like you add add-ins with firefox. Now isnt that better? Doesnt that make people happy?
But how would the user know what's out there to add?
Same like Firefox add-in page. These things are advertised.
[Install - More Software button] and you go to a web interphase and choose stuff that interests you. -
Angus
.
I'm not sure if it will happen or not, but I would be interested in it. I believe that Google is doing well in web applications, and that it would probably be foolish to venture into something like operating systems with a competitor such as Microsoft. It could either be a massive failure, or a massive success.
Angus Higgins
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.