Slashdot Mirror


Google Muscles Into Microsoft's Turf

gollum123 copies and pastes: "AP has a story on how as Google rapidly rolls out new products, the company best known for its wildly popular search engine is muscling into the software giant's turf, including its stronghold: the computer desktop."

246 comments

  1. At least... by BluhDeBluh · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google is less evil than MS

    1. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And how, pray tell, do you come to that conclusion?

    2. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google is good ... google puts the science back into CS whereas redmond has done nothing but breed clickologists..

    3. Re:At least... by big_a · · Score: 3, Funny

      And how, pray tell, do you come to that conclusion?

      Well, "Don't be evil" is their company motto.

    4. Re:At least... by EkkiEkkiShiwaddle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Google less evil than MS? Really?

      Personally, I do not consider Google nor Microsoft evil (there goes my Slashdot image), I merely consider them companies trying to get rich each in its own way. Nevertheless, it seems to be the trend nowadays, Google is your friend and more of the same nonsens.

      In the long run, I'm more afraid of a "oh, it's from Google so it's OK" mentality than the old "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" one. There is such a thing as trusting something or someone too much...

      I say trust nobody - it's safer that way.

    5. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not evil because they say so? Do you believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny too?

    6. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and your point is?
      - big_a

    7. Re:At least... by aug24 · · Score: 1

      That's like complementing me by saying that I'm not as bad as Charles Manson.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    8. Re:At least... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      This is all part of their master plan. Seem like the good guys, and then BAM before ya know it we are all mindless zombies to Google like the masses are to M$ ;)

      In all seriousness, these guys are no more saints then any other business. They want to turn a profit - since going public they now have to be responsible to those holding shares.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    9. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, "Don't be evil" is their company motto."

      Big deal. The definition of evil is such a subjective thing.

    10. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really their company motto? Seriously.

    11. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ask Google? Google says yes, it is their motto.

    12. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, pray tell, do you come to that conclusion?

      Bill 'Micro and Soft' Gates and Steve 'Monkey Boy' Balmer are not at Google. QED.

    13. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [TinfoilHatMode]
      Google is Microsofts plan to lure even the the MS haters into their realm.
      [/TinfoilHatMode]

    14. Re:At least... by schmink182 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If Santa and the Easter Bunny announced that they exist, I would probably believe them...

    15. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I heard it first-hand, I would believe it too.

    16. Re:At least... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      these guys are no more saints then any other business.

      I, respectfully, disagree. Just because companies are generally amoral does not mean all of them behave in the same way. Some companies try to retain the trust of customers though honesty, and fair dealing. Some companies often used as examples here on Slashdot are Google and Apple. I think this is for a very good reason. Both companies are under the control of geeks who want to do "cool stuff." While responsible for making money and increasing shareholder value, it is obvious that the people in charge really want to make cool things, and the money making is not all there is to it. Executives who run other companies, like say, Dell or Walmart only seem to care about maximizing profit. They want money, and that is all they are focused on. Everything is about making the most money and cool stuff is only made if it can be certain to make more money than not cool stuff. Has Apple or Google ever acted in a way that is not ethical? Almost certainly, but for the most part the companies are not about getting our money, but rather doing cool stuff. The results are fairly obvious as well. They make the cool stuff. Companies that are not motivated to make cool stuff, from the top down, usually fail to do so, because those in command cannot see past their pocketbooks to see the potential of innovation.

    17. Re:At least... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, while a companies techies (and M$ is run by a geek) want to make cool stuff - a company is going to make cool stuff only (with rare exception which i will note later) for the purposes of making a profit. Mind you that profit does not have to be money - it could be also to increase its reputation, get product acceptance, etc.

      Sometimes companies will make cool stuff that they know will not make them much money - but this is more on a charity level and it is rare. Also, companies do give back to the community via donations - but this is not in the scope (exactly) of what you were mentioning.

      While we tout that Google and Apple are these great guys in white hats - we should also note that Apple was worse (imho still is...iTunes) with proprietary equipment and software. People here on /. rant and scream at M$ for its proprietariness - but lets face it - Apple is WAY more notorious for that then anyone else I can think of.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    18. Re:At least... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not an Apple zealot. I don't like a lot of the things they do, and their music business using DRM is very questionable. In the end, however, I think that they may have saved us a lot of pain by entering the market. They proved that people wanted, and would pay for digital music, and they provided a loophole in the DRM, so that customers can still do anything they need or want with the music in a legal way.

      If Apple did not enter the music business, MS would probably just win, and we would all be stuck with most new music (and most old music) trapped in a DRM format that makes it illegal to copy between machines and formats. We would end up either breaking the law, or paying a tax on music to both MS, and the RIAA, again and again.

      I might mention, I'm also not an open source zealot. OS is a great idea, and is a wonderful value proposition, that has really not been taken advantage of they way it should be. That said, I have no problem with closed source, and if someone wants to sell closed source software, I don't have any problems with that. Apple has been pretty good about adhering to standards and open formats, especially of late. It is entirely possible that this would not continue if they had a huge market share, like MS, but since that is never going to happen, I'm not really worried about it. People rant and scream about MS, because MS pisses on us again and again. Anyone in the computer business, or any business that relies upon computers has suffered at MS's hands. If not for their business practices, and illegal antics we'd probably be ten years ahead of where we are today. They have disemboweled the market. The only good thing that has come out of it, is that OS has evolved into such a powerful force because of the hardship it has had to endure. The strength of open source may eventually remake both the software and intellectual property industries.

    19. Re:At least... by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Personally, I'm a bit apprehensive about all of Google's plans. I can see software becoming freely available with servers and hardware being the thing beyond reach. It seems like Google is working towards having all systems run off their hardware in such a way that the small man could not imitate. So our future will require a subscription to Google's internet. Either that, or don't have a modern system to use. Once we had to pay for software, now we have to pay for services (computer cycles coupled with software).

      As long as I can keep using my own software and hardware, I'll be happy.

    20. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run, I'm more afraid of a "oh, it's from Google so it's OK" mentality than the old "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" one. There is such a thing as trusting something or someone too much...

      Well said. I've always been a little surprised by the blind support that Google gets here on slashdot. It's a company that has done great things and it sounds like the founders have their heads screwed on right.

      BUT, for example, if they are so great, then why is the Googlebar not Open Source? It's not that there's any technology hidden in there, and the OSS community could have ported it to Firefox. (I know there's a Googlebar for Firefox, but it's not a port). What I'm saying is, it seems that Google is largely a closed source company.

      Anyways, I'm giving Google the benefit of the doubt, but I agree that it's not appropriate to unconditionally trust them.

  2. When Google write an operating system.... by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... then get back to me. Until then , plu-lease, the're just another application , albeit online.

    1. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by rastachops · · Score: 1

      It'd be very interesting to see what would come of a Google operating system. I would assume they have the capital and resources to make a viable competitor to Windows. It's a hell of a big risk to try and take them on though.

    2. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      "the're just another application , albeit online"

      Aren't they also a verb now?

    3. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Operating system, schmoperating system. People use applications, not an OS. If you can make your application OS agnostic, then you DON'T NEED to compete in the OS market.

    4. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please remember: an OS is just another application as well.

      If Google pushes the OS into the background then the y do become the "OS", at least in the user's eye.

      This is why M$ wanted to "cut off Netscape air supply". Netscape was pushing the same way.

      As an off shoot look at any browser today, they all support "file:". This was popularized by Netscape, it was also a corner stone to why M$ IE is part of the OS.

    5. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clustered computing platform and terrabyte-sized filesystems in use at Google to power their backend systems arn't exactly off the shelf components. So they already have written their own Operating System.

      You may now return to being wrong and smug about it.

    6. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by krymsin01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously, every idiot knows it's Puh-leeeese.

      --
      stuff
    7. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by ceeam · · Score: 1, Funny
      Please remember: an OS is just another application as well.

      Uhm, what college have you studied at? Please share so that others know to avoid it.

    8. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Rumor has it that Google will release their own distribution of Emacs, the most powerful Operating System available.

    9. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "their backend systems arn't exactly off the shelf components"

      Really? Guess its so secret their own staff don't know it:

      http://www.google.com/technology/

    10. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      "Please remember: an OS is just another application as well."

      Oh please do expand on that point , I'd love to know your, um , unique take on what an OS is ;)

      "As an off shoot look at any browser today, they all support "file:".

      OOooooo , you mean you can view a file in a browser? OOOoooo. Wow , yeah , thats means is a Almost Like An OS. Bit like Notepad too eh?

      "it was also a corner stone to why M$ IE is part of the OS"

      Hardly. Modifying browser code to read a file rather than a socket is a no brainer. IE was embedded for somewhat dubious technical and political reasons.

    11. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Rumor has it that Google will release their own distribution of Emacs, the most powerful Operating System available.

      If they relase their own version of the Mac, then they could have a GMac running Gmacs

    12. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.. what do u think they'd call their OS?
      GoogleOS
      GooglOS
      gOS
      DoNoEvil2005
      Doors
      Goonix
      Lingle
      Googlix
      Goonux?
      (That last two just seem like some new pr0n site name..)

    13. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will add a decent editor to it? Maybe they could port VI over to EmacsOS.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    14. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing on that page contradicts anything I said. It looks like your knee jerked so fast it caused a concussion or something. Things like the Google File System are not off the shelf components, and neither is their amazingly redundent, fualt tolorant clustering. As it looks like I need to point out the blindingly obvious to you at each step, I did not say that Google has written everything themselves, from scratch.

    15. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by guet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While a browser or browser based app is not an OS and never will be, I think the parent poster to yours had a very good point.

      Most users do not even know what an 'Operating System' is. Their interaction with it comes almost entirely through the File explorer or Finder (call it what you will). As a developer there's a lot more to it (multiple APIs, file IO, multimedia etc etc), but not as a user.

      Google Desktop, interestingly, can all but replace that part of the OS for most users; if they need to open a file, they no longer look for it in folders and click on it, they search and then click a link. And it's faster than the search that's built in - how embarrassing for MS.

      Say Google launched photo management software (Picassa), email software (Gmail), a search function (Desktop search), a web browser (perhaps a rebranded Firefox with Desktop Search), and finally an office suite (either written in XUL or native).

      As the OS tends towards a badly debugged set of device drivers, in the perception of a non-technical user Google becomes the 'OS'. Also of interest is the fact that the browser has become most peoples' universal file viewer - you can view jpegs, txt, PDFs, movies etc in there. Good or bad, this is often how they use it.

      The user sees Google all day - they see Microsoft software when they go to change the printers or the desktop background. Apart from that, as far as they're concerned, their computer is run by Google...

      Now whether it would be wise to poke MS with a sharp stick like this is debatable, but the premise that the OS is nothing but a skin on a kernel, filesystem etc is actually true from a user's point of view. That skin, worryingly for Microsoft, is replaceable, that's why they merged IE with the OS and made it impossible to remove, and that's why they're aiming to choke the internet again with XAML.

    16. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just might want to watch the your computer boot the next time you move that "red" switch from 0 to 1.

      You see that first stuff that is going by is called a biOS. That right the OS that actually is your machine.

      And what does that run? AN APPLICATION. That application happens to like to be called an OS but it IS just another wrapper around the actual machine.

      Even in that OS is not an all an OS. Just that parts that are kernal and drivers can be truly though as an OS. The rest of the stuff is applications thrown into the pot to help lock out others from trying to take over the machine.

      Now they know do did not go to college. Maybe night school would be your best bet.

    17. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      THats fair enough , but my point (which no one seemed to get) is that UNTIL google write an OS themselves they're still going to have to rely on MS or Apple or Linus or the *BSD teams to provide one. And if the users go for Windows then MS is still going to get the cash whether google provides the desktop or not. You could argue that if google is all users ever see then the OS becomes interchangable and Windows could be replaced with Linux. Perhaps this will happen , but its a way off yet and don't forget that there will always be apps users wish to load themselves that will REQUIRE a specific OS and don't care about what desktop is in use.

    18. Re:When Google write an operating system.... by guet · · Score: 1

      well, yes all this is way off. They haven't even stated this is their intention, it's all speculation. However if they want to avoid being muscled out by Microsoft, their best plan might be to offer a suite of services that are available anywhere, via the browser, and which could even host users' data (for free for light users with ads, or business users on a contract) with guaranteed uptime.

      I don't think they'll ever have to write their own OS (operating system as in providing APIs, file IO services etc) or want to. However they *can* provide a range of services that the user can interact with instead of those which come from the OS vendors (MS, Apple).

      Yes, MS would still make money from the real OS. However I don't see that as a problem for Google - their problem comes if they let Microsoft try to edge them out of markets like search or mail by tying in customers to an MS implementation/browser (as they have done in the past). Wresting control of some of these components away from MS would avoid that danger, but then it might just annoy MS enough to try to 'cut off their air supply'.

      Anyway, thanks for the cogent responses.

  3. Google by oexeo · · Score: 4, Funny

    the company best known for its wildly popular search engine

    That's what Google do! I've always wandered.

    1. Re:Google by Teknorat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to wander but then my legs got tired so I sat down and began wondering.

    2. Re:Google by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, if you use google, no more wandering around the internet for you, they'll tell you exactly where to go!

    3. Re:Google by Quill345 · · Score: 1

      Dude, next time be smart and look it up on Google.

    4. Re:Google by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Unless you're looking for a review of a product - then, you'll generally get hundreds of links to shopping comparison sites, almost all of which match the word "review" because they say something like "no reviews yet".

      (Yeah, OT, but it's been bugging me for a while)

    5. Re:Google by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Wanderful! :)

    6. Re:Google by Fjornir · · Score: 1
      TimC - Wow. I haven't had to teach anyone how to use a search engine since... '94? Say you're looking for a review of the Whizmatic7000. You might start with something like...

      Whizmatic7000 review

      ...Hm. The results are pretty relevant, but there are lots and lots of bogus entries -- they say "no reviews yet" ... Hm. Wouldn't it be great if I could ask google to filter those out for me?

      Whizmatic7000 review -"no reviews yet"

      Simple, eh?

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    7. Re:Google by VoidWraith · · Score: 0

      That's what the summary and first portion of the article lead me to believe (that they'd created something akin to an OS, maybe a Linux distro...) but aparently the AP just wanted to talk about this a while after the relevant events occurred (the Kirkland office was news to me though).

  4. Netscape by nycsubway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought Netscape was going to do this... about 6 years ago. It hasn't quite happened yet. Firefox is getting much better and has many extensions, but it hasn't quite replaced the windows desktop.

    1. Re:Netscape by ianalis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      firefox and mozilla does not intend to replace the windows desktop

    2. Re:Netscape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I thought Netscape was going to do this... about 6 years ago.

      Yes, but then their revenue stream was cut off by the illegal anti-competitive actions of Microsoft.

    3. Re:Netscape by Ninwa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which goes to show one single person isn't to take entire controll but several companies which specialize in what they do. Isn't that what the market was supposed to be like?

    4. Re:Netscape by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      Ahem, cough, ahem - Google isn't behind Firefox (though it might be one day if the rumours are true). Google has a desktop search utility...

    5. Re:Netscape by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      No, but that's what Linux is for.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    6. Re:Netscape by Finuvir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Firefox and Thunderbird, and their like, may not be replacing the Windows desktop, but they can facilitate the move away from it. Before I moved to Linux this summer I was using Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, the GIMP and Gaim on Windows. That made it a lot easier to move away from Windows than if I was used to IE, Outlook, MS Office, MSN Messenger and Photoshop.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    7. Re:Netscape by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firefox is getting much better and has many extensions, but it hasn't quite replaced the windows desktop.

      Replacing the Windows desktop is a harder thing to do than to provide adequate and reasonable applications that offer the same functionality as Windows.

      While FOSS, particularly something like Firefox+Thunderbird+OpenOffice, offers virtually all of what people need, the slight differences in user interface and the comfort level with existing Windows applications in most corporate settings will slow growth of Windows competitors to only the most cost-conscious segments of the market.

      That would include universities, the developing world, full of talent and lean on money, and small business owners with more time and expertise than money. People with ideas instead of money.

      Of course, if I wanted mindshare, that's exactly where I'd want it to start. Risk-averse corporate IT departments will eventually climb on board once they see the bandwagon go by without losing a wheel.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    8. Re:Netscape by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...their revenue stream was cut off...

      Actually, Netscape died when MS offered a browser for free. That is not illegal. MS did plenty of other illegal stuff, but what they did to kill Netscape was not illegal. It is hard to compete against a competitor who offers a similar product for nothing.

      --
      All theory is gray
    9. Re:Netscape by say · · Score: 1

      Actually, Netscape died when MS offered a browser for free. That is not illegal. MS did plenty of other illegal stuff, but what they did to kill Netscape was not illegal. It is hard to compete against a competitor who offers a similar product for nothing.

      It would not be illegal if Microsoft didn't have something close to a monopoly. They shut down Netscape because they used their desktop/OS monopoly to spread their (unrelated product) Web browser. This is not legal under US Anti-trust legislation.

      That's why they were forced to make Internet Explorer separate from their OS. Then it isn't illegal any more.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    10. Re:Netscape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Netscape died when MS offered a browser for free. That is not illegal.

      It is when a monopoly does it to kill a competitor.

      MS did plenty of other illegal stuff, but what they did to kill Netscape was not illegal.

      Would you care to tell me why I should believe you instead of the US courts?

    11. Re:Netscape by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Google and firebox are doing a good job. BUT... there is one sector that M$ will dominate for years and years. That's Games and DirectX.

      If I was a M$ exec, I'd toss 10x the budget into Game API development to make sure every game is damn near bug free. Mac & Linux already struggle at this sector. Firefox and Google will probably never touch upon this area either.

    12. Re:Netscape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offered a browser for free? Like Bill Gates felt like giving the world a browser, so he paid 500 million out of his own pocket to pay for writing it?

      Actually, it was paid for out of the excessive, monopoly profits of Windows. That meant that a Windows user who used Netscape because he liked it better was still paying for IE.

  5. Nothing to see here by m00nun1t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The abstract suggests (or did to me) that Google are doing something new. No such thing (at least in this article). It's just an editorial piece that basically says "boy, aren't google doing lots of stuff - I guess Microsoft must be getting worried".

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by codemangler · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      Marissa Mayer, Google's director of consumer Web products, said the company's goal is to organize information and make it universally accessible, and that goes far beyond search. But she downplays the suggestion that Google's tools could eventually overtake Microsoft's ubiquitous software, saying the company doesn't currently have such plans but "it's hard to speculate" what the future might bring. Chief executive Eric Schmidt has, however, ruled out developing a Google browser to compete with Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer.
      No Google browser. No OS. No office suite. Yeah, MS must be really shakin in their boots.
    2. Re:Nothing to see here by BenjiTheGreat98 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I could tell the author really on top of things when he was confusing memory with disk space....

      --
      :wq
    3. Re:Nothing to see here by sxmjmae · · Score: 1

      What are doing - reading the article??
      Did you not know this is Slashdot where you post comments with out reading said article.

      --
      My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
    4. Re:Nothing to see here by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Whether or not Google has launched a new desktop product is a minor star in their new for-profit constellation. Maybe I haven't been reading enough blogs, but I have yet to see anyone point out the obvious conflict between Google's motto "don't be evil" and their status as a public corporation, which is to be evil.

      Why are public corporations "evil"? This is not a moral argument. Public corporations are bound by law to make as much profit as possible. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. For tobacco execs to admit that cigarettes are deadly would be against the law. It would mean giving up on their business.

      Private companies do not have this problem. They can do whatever they want. Google is no longer a private company.

      On top of this, you have the sheer informational largesse of the Google search engine. It's not a huge stretch to say that Google knows what everyone is thinking, all of the time. Like Microsoft, IBM, and other tech giants before it, Google's new goal will be to amass even more information (code, data) so they can leverage themselves into more markets and "stay competitive." Since the definition of a market is rather slippery in the IT world, Google will tend towards monopoly as easily as Microsoft did.

      The ultimate goal of any IT company is to amass all of the information in the world. After all, information costs barely nothing to store and transfer, and, like the number of nodes in a network (Metcalfe's law), having access to more information grows your influence exponentially. Make no mistake, Google is in a position to become the next Microsoft. The only thing holding them back is their illegal motto.

  6. Microsoft shouldn't worry... by thewonderllama.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they can rely on the quality of their products and their customers' loyalty.
    They shouldn't have any problem competing on a level playing field.
    /painfully straight face ~BS

    --
    Home of the EULA shirt
  7. Google Office by invid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't be impressed until I see Google Office. And Gwindows. That will be something.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    1. Re:Google Office by bhima · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm holding out to find the G-Spot.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Google Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they would have to buy the rights from these guys first, wait, we are talking about the same thing right?

    3. Re:Google Office by Issue9mm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just FYI, but the free iPod thing isn't fake. The only reason you haven't seen me hawking the link in my sig is because I've already received mine, as have three of my friends.

      Also, there have been countless attempts to discredit it, but Gratis Internet is making good on all their "free whatever" promos, including flat screens, iPods, photo iPods and PCs.

      -9mm-

    4. Re:Google Office by teslar · · Score: 2, Funny

      GWindows? Nah...

      GLinux will be the way forward, with the all-new, ground-breaking tool called gfind. Of course that will just be an alias to a funky combination of find and grep, but who cares? It's from Google, so it has to be cool.

    5. Re:Google Office by ilyaa1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah... and GEclipse. and GMatLab. and GiTunes. and.... GICan'tBelieveIt'sNotButter. GWholeSaleStoreChain. come on, Google is a company that was built around know-how in the field of search. it's a modern maxima in the world of business: great companies are great because they stick to their niche, to the something that they know better than anyone else. If you diversify out of your depth, you'll a) waste valuable resources, and b) undermine your company's reputation. Microsoft is trying to be everywhere at once, and thus produces rather unrefined products. Google so far has been concentrated on a pretty narrow field - it should stay that way.

    6. Re:Google Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gin-dows... Comes with a free 'dows' of gin!

    7. Re:Google Office by SunPin · · Score: 4, Funny
      And Gwindows.

      That sounds too much like "Gwyndows" and, as such, would remind me of an ex-girlfriend that broke my heart. :)

      Using Gwyndows would be like having her name tattered on me.

      Let this idea die right here, amigo.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    8. Re:Google Office by SunPin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tattered... ugh... I meant "tattooed".

      No more posting before 11 a.m.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    9. Re:Google Office by hachete · · Score: 1

      Search no longer

      You can also just see the Google trademark lurking there...

      h
      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    10. Re:Google Office by ilyanep · · Score: 0

      Of course you understand, Microsoft will probably find a way to copyright "Office" and "Windows" by then. (See, story from about a week ago which I can't find).

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    11. Re:Google Office by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      What about Quicken for Google? OTOH, I DON'T want anyone googling my Quicken data!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    12. Re:Google Office by rwjyoung · · Score: 1

      Not Gwindows or GLinux
      Googles operating system would "run" in your browser. Therefore making the OS as we now know it some sort of hardware abstraction layer.

      This is what Microsoft is so afarid of. It gets the OS off the desktop and out of the computer. It doesnt matter what "hardware abstraction" your running Windows, Linux, OSX whatever if you can run Googles browser your Office apps and all your files would be available through that. Prehaps you have the google equivilent of "exe"'s stored locally so you can run offline, but most of your files would be remotly stored.

      Thats what MS doesnt want, it makes their cash cows irrelavent.

      --
      Watch me build my house
    13. Re:Google Office by teslar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's just be clear about one thing... the Operating System is still the piece of software that allows you to operate your Computer. It sits between your computer and your applications, allowing the latter to access the former in a sensible way. Note that 'applicatons' includes file browers and application launchers.
      Therefore, what you call 'hardware abstraction' is, in fact, the OS and the features available through the Google brower, including the Google browser itself, will just be another application and not an OS.

      It should be clear why we will not see a Google OS - the Chicago Bulls don't play in the NHL for that same reason

    14. Re:Google Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now. We're not criticizing you for having grown up in Alabama.

    15. Re:Google Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even spelled correctly, it's still not funny.

    16. Re:Google Office by bigpat · · Score: 4, Funny

      " I'm holding out to find the G-Spot"

      I've always thought that is what google should name a new google dating service.

    17. Re:Google Office by mbbac · · Score: 1

      It's not fake. I know a few people that have received theirs.

      --

      mbbac

    18. Re:Google Office by mazarin5 · · Score: 1
      "Gwyndows" [...] would remind me of an ex-girlfriend

      Her name is Gwyndows?
      How unusual! Is she Welsh or something?

      --
      Fnord.
    19. Re:Google Office by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      No more posting before 11 a.m.

      Good idea. There's the off-chance that you woke up late and are posting from home if its before 11am. Best to aim for mid-day posts so its on your company's time.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    20. Re:Google Office by jsitke · · Score: 1

      I'm holding out for GoOSe. The new Google OS Beta. Should be coming out next year.

    21. Re:Google Office by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...but most of your files would be remotely stored...

      I don't think so. I would not want to have my private and important data only accessible via a tenuous data link that is dependent on who knows how much breakable equipment. Besides, until 1GB/s networking becomes cheap enough, networks are MUCH too slow for large graphical and sound data files. So far, I have found also that local hard drives are much more reliable and secure than *any* computer network.

      --
      All theory is gray
    22. Re:Google Office by Lfen · · Score: 1

      I quite liked tattered with it's suggestion of "shattered" and "tatooed" quite poetic really, don't change it. lfen

  8. Hyperoffice.com by madaxe42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how long it'll be before google snap up HyperOffice. They're based around the apps the guys who made WebOS made, and, to tell the truth, their products are pretty good, it just seems a shame that no-one uses them.

    I'd make a bet that google will buy them out, and ruthlessly remarket, rape, and pillage their software.

    1. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No one wants hosted crap. Recurring fees, no applications if you are somewhere w/o an Internet connection, you never really "have" the software, etc. Its frickin rent-a-center.

      Unless you have no IT staff at all and always have an Internet connections...and even then there are better alternatives.

    2. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Zentac · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm, no IT staff, nice Sounds almost to good to be tru, so if Google dos something like this for "free", what? nobody would use Office anymore, right?

    3. Re:Hyperoffice.com by oexeo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No one wants hosted crap. Recurring fees, no applications if you are somewhere w/o an Internet connection, you never really "have" the software, etc. Its frickin rent-a-center.

      What about the future? When hosted solutions can rival or equal OS based applications, and an internet connection is considered as standard IO device as a keyboard.

      Its frickin rent-a-center.

      And being forced to upgrade your OS, and applications just to keep up with current software demands and document types isn't?

    4. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Dusabre · · Score: 0, Troll

      [I}I'd make a bet that google will buy them out, and ruthlessly remarket, rape, and pillage their software[/I}

      [sarcastic]Yes, google has a reputation for being evil.[/sarcastic]

    5. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [I} [...] [/I}


      What sort of fucked tags are those?

    6. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      No one wants hosted crap. Recurring fees, no applications if you are somewhere w/o an Internet connection, you never really "have" the software, etc. Its frickin rent-a-center.

      Yeah but my.yahoo (for example) gives you a 100 megabytes of storage space for email, 30 megabytes for random online storage, contact list, calendar, and notepad for free (you can get higher quotas for pay). So you've already got the basics of hyperoffice (i.e.; online email, file storage, contact list, calendar and the applications to manage them); hyperoffice just adds a couple of applications and gives you a simulated desktop in a browser window to use them in.

      When will gmail "discover" that people want to use some of their online email space as storage without using a hack like filebunker, or add an online calendar to their contact list? After they do that, they're already halfway to something like hyperoffice.

      I'm not saying that my.yahoo or gmail should use hyperoffice as their interface. The downside is that hyperoffice is a very heavyweight application for a browser app and almost requires a broadband connection, but my point is that there are already online sites that offer much of the functionality of hyperoffice.

    7. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Recently, my ISP did an upgrade that left without internet service for several hours. The fact is, internet service is waay more vulnerable than having everything on your own HD.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:Hyperoffice.com by arminw · · Score: 1

      ... being forced to upgrade...

      Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to upgrade? If it works, don't fix it. If you lust after, and can genuinely be more productive with a newer computer/software, then upgrading may be cost effective. MS and others would love to rent you their wares, and for some, like renting a car, this is advantageous.

      For most users however, a system that does what you want reasonably well is desired. MS has never made anything really great, but it has been and is always just good enough for most users, especially those who don't know or care that there are better solutions out there.

      --
      All theory is gray
    9. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did not notify you of the maintenance window, then that's irresponsible on the ISP's part. If they did, then get over it--upgrades happen.

    10. Re:Hyperoffice.com by jbarr · · Score: 1
      Yeah but my.yahoo (for example) gives you a 100 megabytes of storage space for email, 30 megabytes for random online storage, contact list, calendar, and notepad for free (you can get higher quotas for pay). So you've already got the basics of hyperoffice (i.e.; online email, file storage, contact list, calendar and the applications to manage them); hyperoffice just adds a couple of applications and gives you a simulated desktop in a browser window to use them in.
      I personally think Yahoo is an excellent service, but my fundamental problem with Yahoo is their ad model. I personally find their ads annoying, intrusive, and more often than not, completely irrelevent to me. Google, in all its services that provide ads, does it in a way that does not offend me as a user. Their location is predictable, and you know that they will almost always be relevent to what you are searching or viewing, and they are not distracting from the content I'm trying to view. Yahoo's ad model on the other hand is frankly insulting. And to make matters worse, short of paying for an expensive business account, even PAID mail accounts must endure ads. If I'm paying for a service, I do NOT expect to be paying to see advertizing. If Yahoo would offer a reasonably priced service that was ad-free, or implement "decent" ads like Google/Gmail has, I would embrace it in a heartbeat, but until then, I'll stick with other solutions.
      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    11. Re:Hyperoffice.com by jbarr · · Score: 1
      No one wants hosted crap. Recurring fees, no applications if you are somewhere w/o an Internet connection, you never really "have" the software, etc. Its frickin rent-a-center.
      The problem is in the implementation. I, for one, am very patiently awaiting decent hosted applications. The problem is that no one has created them yet. Additionally, I'm awaiting a decent implementation that would provide tightly integrated offline and online solutions. Solutions that would be tightly integrated together and seamlessly synchronizing in the background while I'm working. My vision is that I should be able to go to ANY Internet-connected workstation regardless of operating system and be able to access and work with "my stuff". Then when I get to my "home PC" or my "work PC", I should be able fire up offline versions that can auto-synchronize keeping me fully up-to-date. Providing both would let me taking advantage of the offline speed and capabilities while still maintaining an online backup and working environment.

      And I'm not just talking about the typical "colaboration" applications like email, calendaring, and file sharing. I'm awaiting full-blown office applications like Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Databases, Presentation programs, etc. But the problem with current standalone versions is that they are so bloated with crap that there is no possible way to make them "online-available". What we need is some lean, mean, online-available applications that provide "essential" functionality. All the "extras" either need to reside only on the "offline" version or need to be eliminated alltogether.

      We have come to a point where software companies are doing nothing but "one-upping" each other causing huge feature bloat, and it is this bloat that is preventing effective online-available applications. We need to ask ourselves "Do we really NEED all the bloated features just to convey our personal and business information?" As time goes on and technology improves, then we can add back in some of these "extras" but until then, give us some solid, reliable, online-available applications that seamlessly synchronize with offline versions.

      Will these be free? probably not, and I personally wouldn't expect them to, but they should be competitivley priced so that just about anyone could afford them.
      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    12. Re:Hyperoffice.com by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      If they did not notify you of the maintenance window, then that's irresponsible on the ISP's part. If they did, then get over it--upgrades happen


      Sure, upgrades happen! But I could still use my computer offline during the outage. I would have been PO'd if that several hour outage had crippled my ability to use my word processor or balance my checkbook for that period.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  9. Ironic .... by Gopal.V · · Score: 5, Informative

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic to read about Google's World Domination plans on Yahoo news ? :)

    Google Search - ?
    Gmail - Hotmail
    Desktop Search - ?

    That's how the tally stands for Google ... I won't waste my time explaining what MS has that Google doesn't :)

    But I gotta love http://www.google.com/firefox :)

    1. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Search - MSN Search GMmail - Hotmail Desktop Search - It's built into Windows.

    2. Re:Ironic .... by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 3, Informative

      But I gotta love http://www.google.com/firefox :)

      they have http://www.google.com/ie too

      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    3. Re:Ironic .... by oexeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look at the beautiful design for Firefox, and then compare it with the crappy one for IE, says alot about what Google thinks of IE*, doesn't it?

      *In actual fact the page for IE was designed for use in the IE search pane, where as the Firefox page is obviously designed to be set as the homepage.

    4. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently there is a microsoft page as well:

      And a linux:

      But what language is that?

    5. Re:Ironic .... by giminy · · Score: 1

      ...and a http://www.google.com/mac

      This is pretty weird...

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    6. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget http://www.google.com/linux

      they seem to be covering all of their bases^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
      All your base are belong to google!!

    7. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      IE is designed for narrow side bar, firefox is designed for homepage. Now go away.

    8. Re:Ironic .... by Finuvir · · Score: 1, Funny

      What part of "In actual fact the page for IE was designed for use in the IE search pane, where as the Firefox page is obviously designed to be set as the homepage" didn't you understand?

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    9. Re:Ironic .... by DrCash · · Score: 0
      I for one welcome our new google overlords!

    10. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/palm
      http://www.google.com/ linux
      http://www.google.com/redhat
      http://www.go ogle.com/aol

    11. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and a http://www.google.com/safari

      This is pretty weird...

    12. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets not forget http://www.google.com/chimpsex/sex_with_chimps/yea h_chimps

    13. Re:Ironic .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think gp was trying to point out that you're comparing apples to oranges. one was designed for a full window, and the other for a narrow sidebar.

    14. Re:Ironic .... by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      What would the SEC think if they saw news about google on news.google or in the search index?

      It could be construed the wrong way, and then Google is in a lot of legal hot water for misdirecting it's client base.

      So rather than take a chance, they just filter everything about Google, good or bad.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    15. Re:Ironic .... by Rhino+Green · · Score: 1

      Also, automatically redirected to http://www.google.com/palm when visiting with a strange little pocket pc.

      Any others?

  10. Microsoft, here's a tip by oexeo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From article: Microsoft launched an Internet browser toolbar that blocks pop-up ads and enables search, years after Google had created its own.

    Get a clue Microsoft! The Google Toolbar supplements basic lack of features in IE (such as auto-complete, search box, and pop blocker). When it's your product, you don't need to add a toolbar extension, you just add the features to to the goddamn browser itself!

    1. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by SnowWolf2003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get a clue Microsoft! The Google Toolbar supplements basic lack of features in IE (such as auto-complete, search box, and pop blocker). When it's your product, you don't need to add a toolbar extension, you just add the features to to the goddamn browser itself!

      actually, MSN released a toolbar that added similar features to the Google toolbar. Microsoft, in XP SP2, did actually add the popup blocker to the browser itself. Although MSN is part of Microsoft, it acts much more like a seperate company, another example of this is MSN Messenger vs. Windows Messenger.

    2. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget to install the IE security toolbar ;)

    3. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSN messenger and windows messenger are nothing alike. MSN Messenger is like AIM, while Windows Messenger is used for sending server downtime (or other important) messages and the like to either specific or a range of computers using the targets IP address or range.

    4. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by Curate · · Score: 3, Informative
      MSN messenger and windows messenger are nothing alike.

      Wrong. They are virtually identical. They are instant messaging clients, similar in concept to AIM.

      You're thinking of the Messenger service, which should not be confused with Windows Messenger. Open services.msc and look at the description of the Messenger service. "... This service is not related to Windows Messenger."

    5. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Dont forget to install the IE security toolbar ;)

      Don't do that! It has many publicized security holes.

    6. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      "Get a clue Microsoft! The Google Toolbar supplements basic lack of features in IE (such as auto-complete, search box, and pop blocker). When it's your product, you don't need to add a toolbar extension, you just add the features to to the goddamn browser itself!"

      They would be bashed into a pulp by people talking about taking advantage of Windows monopoly to create IE monopoly to create MSN Search/Hotmail/MSN Groups/etc monopoly.

    7. Re:Microsoft, here's a tip by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Although MSN is part of Microsoft, it acts much more like a seperate company, another example of this is MSN Messenger vs. Windows Messenger.

      And what a clusterfuck that turned out to be. Here you have two clients, with different capabilities (MSN has logging, Win has Remote Assistance), running over one network, and requiring that you only be logged into one client at a time. And if that wasn't enough, their default behaviour has them fighting to see which one will log in last (and kick the other client off). It would be funny if it wasn't so frustrating, watching two apps that are supposed to do the same thing fight it out for your network access.

      And yes, I know MSN Messenger is supposed to have remote assistance, but if you've ever used it, the first thing it seems to do is log you out of MSN and start Win. And when you're finished with RA, you're left in Win Messenger, since that's clearly where you wanted to be in the first place.

      Microsoft. Where do you want to go today? Well, let us tell you.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  11. No Microsoft? by nSignIfikaNt · · Score: 1

    But how will I browse to google.com if I'm not running MS Windows and Internet Explorer?

    --
    I'm not a karma whore but I play one on Slashdot
    1. Re:No Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But how will I browse to google.com if I'm not running MS Windows and Internet Explorer?

      You can use Linux & Firefox!

    2. Re:No Microsoft? by nSignIfikaNt · · Score: 1

      I guess I needed to add the tags around my comment to convey the true meaning. Thanks for playing though.

      --
      I'm not a karma whore but I play one on Slashdot
    3. Re:No Microsoft? by hostyle · · Score: 0
      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    4. Re:No Microsoft? by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1
      So how is that this hasn't been modded 'funny'? Perhaps its too early in the morning for irony.

      Firefox makes using google even simpler. And in Konqueror, all I do it type

      gg: slashdot irony
      to find that the most ironic part of Slashdot is the lack of conformance the the web standards that most of the open source community espouses.

      Hmmm ... perhaps it is the case that irony is more appreciated by the readers that the staff. I guess that could expain both issues :-)

      --
      Think global, act loco
    5. Re:No Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux you dumbass! Pay attention to what site you are on. Damn bloggers always get lost and showing up on slashdot. Let me guess you have a warning on your site telling people "best viewed in IE"? :P

      **all in the spirit of good slashdot trolling fun! ;)

  12. Google by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

    might not have an OS (yet?), but anything they do that shakes up Microsoft can't be all bad. If nothing else, the platform-independence of the Google offerings cracks open the door for FOSS a little more.

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
  13. Important considerations. by NivenMK1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's imporant to consider that web-based storage of information won't become viable for information other than the odd picture and written document until current internet connections get drasticly faster and more reliable overall.

    It's also important to keep in mind that there are several key differences between web-based software and technologies and system-based software and technologies, especially with regards to an operating system.

    The third consideration is that while Google is making progress, so is Microsoft. Granted, the G-man could catch MS, but I don't think it's quite as immenent as the article intones it to be.

    1. Re:Important considerations. by mgv · · Score: 1

      It's imporant to consider that web-based storage of information won't become viable for information other than the odd picture and written document until current internet connections get drasticly faster and more reliable overall.

      Of course, a web based word processor with a gig of storage at the back end might make a few people interested - its not that different from a gMail app when you think about it.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  14. MS Search isn't hard to beat by Fr05t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few weeks ago I was looking for a document on my company's very large file server. In fact it was a document with notes on a completitors product. So I did a document containing "company name" search. To my surprise it seemed almost ever document in our marketing department and sales departments had mentioned this company in like every second document.

    Several hours later I have a very unhappy looking network admin show up at my office curious about why I have so many documents open. Apparently S&M were trying to open some docs and they were locked by me. So I close the 5 documents I had open and give him the ok. He comes back 5 minutes later. 1500 documents were "locked" for my account. MS's search told had opened, and locked every document it listed in the find window and wouldn't release them until I had shutdown my PC.

    Now the moral of the story is google isnt going to need to do a lot with a desktop search tool to impress me. Maybe I just ask too much of MS :P

    1. Re:MS Search isn't hard to beat by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      I do like MS's spell check and grammar tool. God I shouldn't post this early in the morning :P

      Sorry to any slashdot readers who will be put off by my horrible spelling and grammar in the previous post.

  15. Here's what Google will do... by jmcmunn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than write an OS, they will just buy someone out who already wrote an OS. Then they will take the code base and the technology and add some Google flare to it. They will make one hell of a search feature, to be sure. Oh wait, it's called Google desktop.

    Just look at what they have done lately. Picaso anyone? Keyhole viewer anyone? They are just taking these little companies in for the base apps to their upcoming OS in my conspiracy theory. After all you can't have a good OS without the bloat that comes pre-installed with it.

    Watch for Google to buy things like an IM chat client, some cheesy MineSweeper game, and some sort of CD burning software. That gives them basically the core of what you get when installing Windows. All they need is the OS...

    Hey, I'd install it when it comes out. Then go straight back to Windows when I need to game. That's the key for anyone trying to contend...make sure you get 100% software compatability, games included. Without that you just won't take over.

    ....End Conspiracy Theory....

    1. Re:Here's what Google will do... by mintrepublic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google already has an IM client, Hello. Here is their website.

    2. Re:Here's what Google will do... by Zentac · · Score: 1

      What if...
      The don't make an OS at all, but focus on a sub layer, something I have heard IBM was doing some research in, that is platform independant, so you keep your OS, but your desktop will be Google, maybe as a shell manager, maybe as an extra layer...

    3. Re:Here's what Google will do... by Dusabre · · Score: 2, Funny

      [I]That's the key for anyone trying to contend...make sure you get 100% software compatability, games included. [/i]

      Cue Mission Impossible music.

    4. Re:Here's what Google will do... by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Google wants an OS, why wouldn't they just go with Linux? It's free and they already use it internally so it would only make sense. Though I don't think they want the OS market. At least not any time soon.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    5. Re:Here's what Google will do... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      What's the incentive? Picasa manages photos much better than other free-ish windows tools. Keyhole blows terra way. At the time, the google toolbar was the best pop-up blocker, etc. Its kinda qauint now with Firefox and SP2. Not to mention its spyware (unless you opt for the non-spyware version).

      I don't see how you can go from handy apps, to throwing out the entire OS (and perhaps the PC). To get into the OS game effectively you also have to play the hardware game and even then you gotta fight all those MS-only contracts and deal with a much smaller software library. Its not worth it. Windows may end up a 'natural' monopoly for home users, unless theres a big shift to OSX like the Firefox shift we're seeing. Frankly, Linux isnt going to cut it with technophones.

      That said, there are incentives out there google and others can monopolize on. For instance, MS Office is expensive and now harder to pirate. Google could get in the Office game with OpenOffice or one of those web-based Office suites. Or maybe they can start small by working with Abiword (grammar checker anyone?) and pushing it out with a google brand.

      Personaly, I'm guessing google will aim for iLife-like apps for Windows as MS keeps failing to deliver anything worthwhile/affordable. Hell, I wouldnt be surprised to hear about a google "garage band" clone tomorrow.

    6. Re:Here's what Google will do... by jokercito · · Score: 1

      This looks like what the GNU project was like without Linux. hehe. Google/Linux anyone? :)

    7. Re:Here's what Google will do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice html there, buddy.

  16. MS- Requirement for life? by mordors9 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The question, Garrity said, is whether computer buyers may one day decide that they no longer even need a Microsoft operating system.
    I haven't needed it for years. Used to have a Mac. Now I have been using Linux for several years.
    1. Re:MS- Requirement for life? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I play games, so I need it :)

    2. Re:MS- Requirement for life? by robyannetta · · Score: 1

      Until someone releases a non-linear digital video editing solution for Linux, I'm afraid that I'll still have that Winbows OS on my dually box.

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  17. I love this part! by KrancHammer · · Score: 3, Funny


    This is the part where Google wakes up in bed with the motherboard of its best server under the sheets with it.

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
  18. What exactly are they muscling into? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article does not really say. I dont think having a Google search on the desktop means the end of Office. The masses are not ready to commit everything to web based applications just yet. For the forseeable future Google and MS are not (in my opinion anyway) going to be direct competitors on the desktop, unless Google decide to bring out their own Linux distro, or write an OS from scratch. Searching the desktop is just low hanging fruit for Google. Their own distro would still require several years to gain acceptance to the level where they become even a remote threat to MS.

    Even if they were moving in this direction surely a Google web based desktop/app suite poses a far greater threat to Linux then the massively entrenched MS. Its the small players who get killed first in these battles.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:What exactly are they muscling into? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The masses are not ready to commit everything to web based applications just yet.

      No? Why not? Just about everyone I know uses web based mail today, though there are still a few leftovers (who also happen to still use dial-up so I don't think they really count). People are getting more and more used to doing everything online; really, is there that much difference between writing an email to your friend and writing a letter via "GOffice"? Sure, it's online, but with a broadband connection you probably can't tell the difference. And no more shuttling the file from the office to home since it's stored in a common location.

      What do most home users/small offices use Word for? Writing letters? What if Google allowed something like a "print to mail", that printed, metered, and sent the snail mail letter? Or faxed messages for you, and billed you at the end of the month? All those people making newsletters and such, how easy it would be to Google from "GOffice" and find thousands of images to use?

      I think there's a huge potential for Google to muscle into Microsoft's bread and butter, MS Office. Really, I doubt "mom" would really know the difference between MS Word and "GOffice"; and if you said "GOffice" documents would be available while staying over at Aunt Jude's, and she could easily share it, send it, email it, or fax it to Barbara in Cali, then she'd much rather use "GOffice".

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    2. Re:What exactly are they muscling into? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Google web based desktop/app suite poses a far greater threat to Linux then the massively entrenched MS.

      I don't think so. If Google goes after MS, Linux is its natural ally. Google will have to fight against MS's lock in and fighting on top of Windows is not easy when your opponent owns the code. It would take relatively little cash to keep their web-based desktop functional in Linux as well as Windows. This provides a way to move their customers away from the competition's playing field, and provides extra incentive for switchers (save $70 per machine in Windows licensing fees). Coupling that with improved security, near zero worms/viruses/trojans, and protection from MS's vendor lock-in, and you have a recipe that is very favorable for both Google and Linux. It makes for a very nice and gradual transition away, with several available bail-out points.

  19. Sensationalist? by ggeezz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article makes a bold statement that it doesn't really back up. While Google does have the largest market share in web search and will be taking some of the share of desktop search soon, that's a long way from taking over the desktop. And an even farther stretch from making Microsoft's OS obsolete.

  20. For all the fuss... by sailforsingapore · · Score: 1

    ...about Google, I would hardly call it the killer app. for searching, it just happens to be the best thing we have. It won't be from Microsoft, but I can't wait for the day that someone comes up with an application that is more "sticky" than Google.

  21. Aieee! by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And after Google announced plans for Gmail, a free e-mail service touting massive amounts of memory, Microsoft said it would boost free memory on its Hotmail accounts.

    This guy doesn't even know the difference between memory and storage so why should I listen to him?

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Aieee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought hard drives were known as "secondary memory" (or storage)?

    2. Re:Aieee! by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 4, Informative
      This guy doesn't even know the difference between memory and storage so why should I listen to him?

      Actually, there is no real functional difference between memory and storage.

      The only difference is, basically, access speed. And since storage nowadays is a lot faster than memory was a decade ago, that difference is only relative.

      You may add that memory is wiped when a computer is turned off, but that is not the case for all kinds of memory, besides the fact that many computers are never turned off.

    3. Re:Aieee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This guy doesn't even know the difference between memory and storage so why should I listen to him?
      Actually, there is no real functional difference between memory and storage. The only difference is, basically, access speed.
      Wow, that makes his credibility shoot through the roof!
    4. Re:Aieee! by back_pages · · Score: 1

      Wow I'm so informed by your post. Tell me about those floppy disks that are really made from hard plastic! They are not teh floppy at all! LOL!

    5. Re:Aieee! by geekplus · · Score: 1

      Wait, Comic Book Store Guy here got rated +4 Informative? Fuck Slashdot.

    6. Re:Aieee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

      `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    7. Re:Aieee! by Linknoid · · Score: 1
      Actually, there is no real functional difference between memory and storage.

      No, the main difference between memory and storage is what it's used for. When the processor is looking for data or the next instruction it generally checks in the following order:

      • Registers (shortest term, generally kept only for the duration of the current function, although how often its use changes is dependant on processor architecture).
      • Cache (keeps a copy of the most recently used data and instructions, but only for efficiency reasons, it's not the primary source of the data)
      • Memory (where the executable code is executed from, along with any data that the program chooses to store in memory. However, if memory space runs out, often stuff is swapped out to storage and then restored when it is needed again, but programs are never executed directly from storage)
      • Storage (generally, but not always, the longest term place where programs and data are kept, and the largest repository for keeping them. It is almost always non-volitile, but a RAM disk would qualify as storage and still be volatile)
      The clearest differentiation between memory and storage is demonstrated by two constructs that makes one emulate the other: RAM disks and virtual memory (or swap space). The first takes memory and lets you treat it like storage, and the second takes storage and treats it like memory.
  22. Google doesn't have that much money by yorkpaddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm impressed with what google has done. They definetly (?) have a bright core group of people. But they don't have all that much money compared to other players in the computer industry, and those companies haven't succeded in thwarting M$. I think if google made an OS it would be like their website no frills and FAST. I wish them the best of luck.

    --
    "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
  23. Sounds like... Sun? by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If successful, Google could help refashion computing, making people less reliant on storing information on the Microsoft-powered PC on their desk and more dependent on free Web-based e-mail and search functions that can be accessed anywhere from any device regardless of the operating system." - Associated Press, 2004

    "Sun has always believed that a computer connected to a network is much more valuable than a disconnected one. The network is a resource with far more information and service capability than any one computer. It can provide access to its information and services to anyone, anyplace, anytime, on any type of device... The network does not replace the desktop; it extends it, makes it easier to use and much more ubiquitous. It's no longer a question of whether the complexity of software and computing will be moved onto the network. It's a question of how fast will it happen." - Pat Sueltz, Sun Microsystems, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal Nov 15, 1999.

    To think that five years later we're discussing a search engine as a competitor to Microsoft. I can't think of anything that sounds more 1999 than that. The main difference here is, of course, that unlike Sun, you don't need to buy a Google "server" to run these services. They already exist. If Google acquires other web-based businesses (let's say, a direct Salesforce.com competitor or Salesforce.com itself, it's only a billion dollars), then they can very rapidly muscle into this.

    Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned, there isn't much news in this article. I guess it justs gives us /.ers the chance to discuss Google which we haven't done in 4 days so we're getting a bit antsy. Larry and Sergei, by the way, are cashing out stock to the tune of $1bn each. For those not following the stock, it's up about 65-70% since it's debut.

    I'm just waiting for Google to release the "true iPod killer" which can index 5 Libraries of Congress in a minute and weighs less than 1/1000th of a Volkswagen.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  24. This is bullshit by prisoner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, let me know when Google finishes their "Google OS". Second, let me know when it will run Half-life 2. Granted, Google has a great search engine and that desktop thing ain't too shabby either but it is, with the exception of mail, variations on a theme. Google isn't so much in the business of coming up with new ideas and bringing them to market, they are just perfecting what others do. I'm not saying it isn't valuable (what other website name has been transformed into a verb) but to compare their handful of products with the breadth and depth of the Ms product line is laughable.

    1. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (what other website name has been transformed into a verb)

      /.
    2. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and theydo not wany you gamer fanboy butts as cleints.

      please show me one corperation that has the requirement "must run Half life 2 and NWN2"

      they dont, they have some business requirements tht they can easily meet.

      get a clue. computers are about doing work not about the tiny segment called gaming.

    3. Re:This is bullshit by bryce1012 · · Score: 1

      All the same, it's pretty much undeniable that gaming (and gamERS) has been one of the driving forces behind technology from day one. What's the biggest push for faster processors? It's not so you can crunch your Excel sheets, it's so you can squeeze another 3 fps out of Doom 3. Pretty much every video card manufactured today is capable of basic 3d acceleration, and believe me it's not to make your Word documents look prettier. But look what happens: Microsoft sees that everybody has 3d-capable video systems on their computer and integrates it into the operating system. No, we haven't seen what exactly this 3dOS will do for productivity or anything, but the fact remains that it's not something they would push without the already-massive installed base of hardware, which wouldn't be there without games. John C. Dvorak wrote a rather compelling article about this topic a few years back. Too bad I can't find it anymore.

    4. Re:This is bullshit by prisoner · · Score: 1

      ok, hl2 might have been a bad example so how about photoshop, illustrator, word, outlook, etc. How about those for cleints (sic)?

    5. Re:This is bullshit by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Gmail is a "variation on the theme" too; the theme is "search."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  25. For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they are a public company, they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations. The more "good" they have been on the past, the more you are likely to see a change in behaviour now.

    1. Re:For how long? by Xabraxas · · Score: 3, Informative
      they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations

      No. You're wrong. Why do so many people think this? They are responsible to their shareholders in that they cannot willfully or illegally lose their shareholders money. They do no have to forsake their values.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    2. Re:For how long? by bman08 · · Score: 1

      What law says that?

    3. Re:For how long? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations
      No. You're wrong. Why do so many people think this?
      Probably because so many companies do, in fact, do this, people think it must be illegal not to.

      That'd be my guess, anyway....
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    4. Re:For how long? by Morganth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations

      No. You're wrong. Why do so many people think this? They are responsible to their shareholders in that they cannot willfully or illegally lose their shareholders money. They do no have to forsake their values.


      No, you're naive. The basic naivete comes from your language, in fact. "They do not have to forsake their values." Sure, they don't. But there's a _lot_ of pressure to do so.

      Do you really believe people think this because they are whacky? Take a look at this passage from an article from the Harvard Business School:

      Generating corporate virtue

      By now, the story of Malden Mills and its owner, Aaron Feuerstein, is so familiar that the company name has become a sort of shorthand for corporate benevolence. The tale briefly told: In 1995, a fire destroyed Malden Mills' textile plant in Lawrence, an economically depressed town in northeastern Massachusetts. With an insurance settlement of close to $300 million in hand, Feuerstein could have, for example, moved operations to a country with a lower wage base, or he could have retired. Instead, he rebuilt in Lawrence and continued to pay his employees while the new plant was under construction.

      "Why don't more companies act that way?" is a common reaction when people first hear the story. It is much too simplistic to reply that Feuerstein is a better person than most. Whatever Feuerstein's relative level of virtue, he had far fewer shareholders to answer to than the average CEO. Feuerstein's only shareholders are himself and several members of his family, who presumably share his willingness to sacrifice profits for the sake of the employees' wellbeing. (Feuerstein was perhaps too willing--Malden Mills filed for bankruptcy protection last November.) The typical CEO of a publicly held corporation, by contrast, is accountable to thousands of shareholders.

      My purpose here is not to denigrate the share-owned corporation, which is a fundamental building block of democratic capitalism, but to acknowledge that its legal structure imposes certain priorities on its senior leaders. If they fail to maximize earnings for shareholders, managers risk removal by the equity holders to whom they report. Worse, failure to serve shareholders' interests puts the corporation in jeopardy of being acquired by a stronger company or losing access to capital markets. In theory at least, self-interest and self-preservation ensure that no rational executive will engage in activities that clearly erode shareholder value.


      For an interesting approach to the problem (and it does exist!), check out the article.

    5. Re:For how long? by jadavis · · Score: 1

      At no point did you refute that it is legal to do so, you just said that there are pressures.

      Of course there are pressures to gain shareholder value! That's blatantly obvious.

      The act of going public means that you give up control over your company. At any moment when the shareholders think someone else can do a better job of making them money, they kick you out, along with your executive-size salary.

      The bottom line is this: you can only be charitable and giving with your OWN MONEY. You can't donate all the shareholder's money to your pet cause without expecting them to get a new board.

      So, if you want to be a charitable business, simply keep the business private, and don't make an IPO. Make sure any investors are in agreement with your values. I am my business, and I occasionally give my money to the PostgreSQL project (and other projects to a lesser extent).

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    6. Re:For how long? by Paraplex · · Score: 1

      Is that really the best business model? I can imagine running a loss could be advantageous in the long run to push along some innovations ahead of their time...

      'plex

    7. Re:For how long? by Morganth · · Score: 1

      I know this thread is dead already, but I just had to respond to this absurdity.

      The bottom line is this: you can only be charitable and giving with your OWN MONEY. You can't donate all the shareholder's money to your pet cause without expecting them to get a new board.

      We are talking about a corporation being morally and socially responsible. That does not mean the corporation has to "donate shareholder money," although from the sound of it, you hold the typical (and stupid) business mentality that you can just "throw money at things" to solve problems. What I and most people who worry about this stuff are talking about are the actions the corporation takes. Will the corporation's manufacturing practice adversely affect the environment of the surrounding community? Will closing down a factory in a small town where the company was born, only in order to move to cheaper overseas markets and save some cash, ruin the economy of that town? Is the corporation treating its employees with dignitee and respect?

      I'm not saying CEO Joe Schmo has to donate his shareholder's money to Make-a-Wish. I'm saying when he makes decisions, he has to think about things OTHER than the bottom line. And that, increasingly, isn't the case. CEOs feel pressure from their shareholders due to the legal structure of corporations, which allows a group of shareholders to remove a CEO at the slightest performance dip (when earnings go flat). And a CEO has to worry so much about keeping his own job that he doesn't let moral and social concerns enter into his corporate decision-making.

      Yes, you're really, really naive.

  26. objectivity by krayfx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    one thing striking about google is thier objectivity. every technology has been about bringing the results to the fore. no nonsense. be it email, search, ads, catalog search, picture search, news. i use each of these services almost every single day, and some of it several times a day. and they do it all free- now thats one hell of a company. microsoft does a remarkable job of thier offering - but they are always mired in controversy in more than one ways. dubious methods, and always biased. not that thats bad( i do not want to judge them there, the record speaks volumes) - but there are better ways to do it than that. thats what seperates google from microsoft.

  27. It might not mean much to the mighty vole... by Phidoux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... but it's still nice to see someone prepared to take them on. Go Google! Go Firefox! Go Linux (And go anything and everyone else that is undermining their monopoly)

    1. Re:It might not mean much to the mighty vole... by oexeo · · Score: 2, Funny
      ... but it's still nice to see someone prepared to take them on. Go Google! Go Firefox! Go Linux (And go anything and everyone else that is undermining their monopoly)

      Go Microsoft?

  28. suckers to the side i know you hate my 98 ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    olds for nerds.

  29. Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not so long ago, a small technology company made a software that made a specific document format ubiquitous. Technophile pundits hailed it as the end of the Microsoft monopoly. Not long after, a software giant followed up with a software platform that would make programs run on every operating system, and pundits predicted an end to the Windows era. These pundits of course, continued without qualms about their use of Microsoft software, and nobody questioned why anybody would use anything else.

    Fast forward a few years. Microsoft continues to reign supreme. A fad operating system now plays contender, and pundits hail it to take over Windows one day. Nonetheless, everybody, including these pundits, continues to use Microsoft products without qualms. And this has been the status quo for more than 6~7 years, without Microsoft domination subsiding even a wee bit.

    Wake me up when the pundits themselves start to migrate away from Microsoft products.

  30. Google...Microsoft.... by spidergoat2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    You WILL be assimulated!

  31. XUL is the sleeper by Sai+Babu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is Microsoft paying attention?

    XUL makes web based application servers practical.
    User gets his desktop but all his 'stuff' resides elsewhere on the net and economy of scale takes general management functions like automated updates, backup, disaster recovery, etc. availabel to the 'small enterprise'. With Suns new biz model of paying for non-security related patches to it's 'free' OS, Sun better watch this as well.

    If there is one threat to Mr. Softie and Sun, it's sleeping through a killer XUL app or two.

    1. Re:XUL is the sleeper by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Quiet! It would be better if Microsoft continues to ignore XUL, until it's too late.

      Of course, they are paying attention, which is where XAML comes in. So if we want to win, those "killer XUL apps" you speak of had better get here before Longhorn (and Firefox alone won't cut it).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  32. Google to release OS by squoozer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gindows will be a modern cluster only operating system that can find what you want before you know you want it. Comes complete with a minibar.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:Google to release OS by greyhoundpoe · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that even before I reached the punchline of parent all I was thinking was "mmm... gin"

  33. A dream by ceeam · · Score: 2, Funny

    Google has oogles of cash, buys MacOS, releases it on PC. Wanna puff?

    1. Re:A dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Do you have any idea how much cash on hand Apple has? It has about twice as much cash on hand, even though Google has twice the market cap. No way. Besides, OS X on x86 hardware would lose a lot of its advantages.

    2. Re:A dream by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Google wasn't public 5(?) years ago; they could have bought BeOS....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  34. What about Yahoo!!! by pllewis · · Score: 1

    I find their mail services better then gmail. They also have a full calender suite, and it will even send you notifications. They have games, chat, notes, picture manager, news, shopping, etc. The only thing missing is a integrated office suite (bet they are working on it). They are some problems, like too many adds, but its free.

  35. No browser??? by jaguar5150 · · Score: 0

    From TFA: Chief executive Eric Schmidt has, however, ruled out developing a Google browser to compete with Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer. Really? What's this? http://betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?domain=gbrowser. com&x=0&y=0

    1. Re:No browser??? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Not all browsers are web browsers.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  36. Nah, Google has *really* horned in on M$ turf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They've branched into spreading viruses and setting up spam zombies.

  37. Get In Line Google by stinkyfingers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're still waiting for these to come to pass:

    September 3, 2002
    November 23, 1998
    December 5, 2002

    How long have people been saying the end of Microsoft is upon us?

  38. It's about information... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We can talk about equivalents, but a high-speed internet is to the desktop what the motor car was to the horse and cart.

    There are already desktop-killing applications out there. The IMDB wiped out certain CD based movie databases. There are route finders that mean I don't have to have autoroute installed. There are CRM systems where you use a web interface and rent the service.

    I'm using Gmail, and I can search for messages as quickly as I can search messages locally.

    This is all the result of more users and faster networks. There's some nervousness still about "my data is online" but it's going to change. People will just do it because the benefits outweigh the risks.

    As 3G grows, hi-speed will be accessible almost anywhere.

    1. Re:It's about information... by d_strand · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm using Gmail, and I can search for messages as quickly as I can search messages locally.

      And yet you say it so casually.... if only i had a Gmail invite....
  39. It's about accessability by Bruha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As high speed network connections become more commonplace the mobile public will gravitate towards the best platform to keep their information at their fingertips and not stored on their home pc's which for many are inaccessible from abroad.

    Google's email system is a good example of what thin clients should of been in the first place. The interface is slick, easy to use, and you can click from one function to another and it responds nearly as quick as a desktop based application. And this is over a 155k wireless connection. On my home FIOS system where I have 15mbit downloads it's faster than Thunderbird (Tunderbird however maintains my IMAP folders)

    Regardless. Nx broke some ground with a network accessable desktop that ran Linux. No doubt that once it went Open source Google's engineers laid their hands on it and we may see something really productive.

    Google rolls out a usbkey or firewirekey based product that keeps enough software to boot a network connection and windowing system to open a nx based desktop from any networked pc anywhere in the world. Yes then M$ should be worried becuase Google would of then presented the ultimate thin client that would be far cheaper per seat than any product currently produced so far. And if you think that the backend couldnt handle it you have to remember Google's search engine is ran by huge wharehouses of computers we hardly consider using for fileservers nowdays in one huge grid application.

  40. Good for Google by ReeprFlame · · Score: 1

    At least I can trust them MUCH more than Microsoft and I have a feeling that they will do more what the user would like via suggestions and such. Also, Google seems as if they will be smart about decisions and at least give other people a chance at developing software that they offer [unlike the MS Monopoly]. Much of Google's software may even be open source, as is the browser that is still possibly going to be developed. Even if not, at least it could be more functional than most MS apps....

  41. Ya really set the standard high there, bub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What's your next profound statement going to be?

    "Sex is more fun than a molten lead enema."?

    Or will it be:

    "Sleeping is easier than drilling out your own dental caries with a Black & Decker."?

  42. ...Google write an operating system by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    So you don't think that Google have ever submited any patched to the linux Kernel or drivers then?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:...Google write an operating system by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      So what? Is that the same as writing an OS from scratch? No. Stop karma whoring (not that you got anything).

    2. Re:...Google write an operating system by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Have microsoft written an os from scratch?
      Don't they still use the BSD stack for tcp/ip?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:...Google write an operating system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSD for networking.

      Heck, MS-DOS was bought and modified by the Redmond boys, not written from scratch.

      I can't think of a single OS that was actually written from scratch.

    4. Re:...Google write an operating system by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "I can't think of a single OS that was actually written from scratch."

      Then you're not thinking very hard. Most of the earlier ones were or did you think there was a kind of adam & eve OS?

  43. no... by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google just uses their knowledge in the field of searching and data-mining to create new services for its users.
    plain old google to search the web, gmail to search and archive your mail and a desktop search to search and
    manage your office/media files. it basically all comes down to the management of data.

    Mircrosoft does everything. they want to provide everything for everybody. this is pointless.
    they copy other peoples ideas and sell it as their own.
    ok, they do own research as well. the only area where Microsoft seems to be good in is marketing.

  44. Microsoft on the ropes by saddino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft denies that Google has been the impetus for improvements in its products. Sohn says the company is simply responding to customer feedback.

    That's a clever dodge given that "customer feedback" is most likely: "Increase Hotmail storage to match Google. And make Hotmail more like Gmail. Oh, and make desktop search as good as Google. Thanks."

    So on one hand, Microsoft defends its entry into markets as "competition is good for the customer" meaning competition pushes innovation, but on the other hand, when others (read: Google) enter its markets, the competition apparently has no effect on its development.

    Nice try, Microsoft. As a market leader its important to deny that competition is even possible, but when you're clearly playing catch-up, comments like these belie your insecurity about your own ability to "innovate."

  45. Wasn't that in a play by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 0

    Oedipus Techs, or was that Oedipus TeX, I can never remember how to spell Greek.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  46. Bottom Line by jamesl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Google-Microsoft competition is good news for consumers because it means more choices and better products.

    Everything else in the story is just fill.

  47. Well I'm the type of nerd...the wanderer by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 2
    Oh well Im the type of nerd who will never settle down

    Where pretty (anime) girls are well, you know that Im around

    I spy on em and I loveem cause to me theyre all the same

    I want to hug em and squeeze em they dont even know my name

    They call me the wanderer yeah the wanderer

    I roam around around around...

    Oh well theres Syn thia on my left and theres Ack tavia on my right And Serena is the girl with that Ill be with tonight

    And when she asks me which one I love the best I tear open my shirt I got TUX on my chest Cause Im the wanderer yeah the wanderer I roam around around around...

  48. Web Based WP w/ 1 GB storage, 0 Users by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No one, and I mean no one, would use it unless it had two features. I'm just naming these two because I haven't seen any web application that has them.

    First, when you click the close button, it has to pop up a dialog box and ask, "Document has been changed. Would you like to save your changes now?" The possible responses must include the standard choices of yes, no, or cancel.

    Second, when your browser crashes, it has to attempt to save the file and automatically recover it when you start up again. If it can't save it, it must have an autosave feature so that the maximum possible amount of data loss is bounded.

    Web applications for word processing may be possible some day. As you point out, most of the stuff you need is there already. You do need to add some extra hooks in the browser, though. I wouldn't call those things trivial, either. HTTP is supposed to be stateless. Cookies violate that, but they are too limited to be used for word processing.

    Word processing is very stateful, and to enable a web application to provide word processing will require fundamental changes to the way that web browsers operate. Perhaps the changes will be easy to implement, but they are very significant, and should not be made too lightly. The implications for security and privacy need to be examined thoroughly, at the very least.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
    1. Re:Web Based WP w/ 1 GB storage, 0 Users by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      HTTP is supposed to be stateless. Cookies violate that

      <pedantic>
      HTTP is stateless. Cookies just make it possible for an application to store information on the client box. The actual state is held on the server, the cookie is just a key telling the server the index into its collection of saved states. HTTP itself doesn't track any state.
      </pedantic>

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    2. Re:Web Based WP w/ 1 GB storage, 0 Users by michrech · · Score: 1

      To get around loosing the data, the online word processor could simply store what you are typing to it's own local storage 'automatically', similar to how Word keeps a 'temporary' file and updates it every x minutes.

      This way, you have the minimum loss of data if the browser is unexpectedly closed. It could even be made to auto-open to the last point you were at if you were to point your browser back to the online word processor -- like Word does when you re-open it after it has crashed/you lost power/etc.

      I know nothing about actuall programming languages, but I'd think if the word processor were written in java (or something), I would think it would be easy for it to send what you've typed so far to the server for storage without even having to refresh the page, as it were.

      Not EXACTLY what you were looking for, but should go a long way to help. :)

      --
      bork bork bork!
    3. Re:Web Based WP w/ 1 GB storage, 0 Users by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      You do need to add some extra hooks in the browser, though.
      Like XUL?
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  49. Re:wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I hope your alarm bell is ringing to wake you up...;-)

    Well, here I am! I haven't used windows for 5 years at home, 3 years at work, and now haven't used it at the public library for a year. I forget what windows looks like...

    And,uh, I'm not alone...;-)

    You might also try visiting some other places like perhaps Extramudura, Spain for example ;-)

  50. Wonderful Merger. by jhuggart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since google is not planning on releasing their own browser, they could just merge with mozilla. Imagine what could happen if that merger occured. Then Microsoft would have even more to worry about.

    1. Re:Wonderful Merger. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      google... could just merge with mozilla.

      Yeah, you could have a hybrid, half commercial entity, half computer application. Employees could install themselves on computers to save on food costs, and everyone could browse the company looking for porn. Just think of the possibilities!

    2. Re:Wonderful Merger. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      They don't need to merge with anything; all they need to do is merely endorse Firefox on www.google.com. Besides, I wouldn't want Google re-branding Firefox anyway -- I'd rather people hear about "Firefox, the Free [speech] browser" instead of merely "GBrowser, the browser made by Google." But that's just the GPL hippie in me talking....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  51. Ironic? by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic to read about Google's World Domination plans on Yahoo news ?

    Yes.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  52. www.fudfactory.com is all you need, baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can be linked off the surface of The Internet, these guys rule: www

    1. Re:www.fudfactory.com is all you need, baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, why didn't you make a link, like they want you to??

      FUD Factory

    2. Re:www.fudfactory.com is all you need, baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay ;)
      Fud Factory

      BTW, is it just me or does this have ANYTHING at all to do with Fear Factory??? Really?

  53. No frills? by neuph · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/help/features.html
    http://l abs.google.com/

    1. Re:No frills? by bryce1012 · · Score: 1

      But these (admittedly cool and often useful) features aren't shoved in your face when you surf to Google. They're there for the user who needs them, but if John Doe just wants to do a quick search, they don't slow him down in the least.

  54. I Don't Understand? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I thought Google had a good business plan. Why would Google start advertising viral growth media products?

  55. Revised message by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually, MSN released a toolbar that added similar features to the Google toolbar. Microsoft, in XP SP2, did actually add the popup blocker to the browser itself.

    From before:

    When it's your product, you don't need to add a toolbar extension, you just add the features to to the goddamn browser itself!

    So I think we can revise this statement to be something like:

    When TWO companies have added features your browser lacks via toolbar, you REALLY need to add these features - not just the most obvious one like popup blocking - to your product as primary features.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. Re:It's about information... (OT) by root2 · · Score: 1

    Need one? I've still got 3 left. Email me at tjuliang at gmail dot com

  57. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why not?

  58. Linux-biased comments here by happyemoticon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All this searching just makes me increasingly baffled as to why MS didn't include some cutesy GUI'd analog to slocate in XP. It seems like such a simple, straightforward technology: there's a perl port of it that's like 70 lines.

  59. MOD PARENT UP!! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    Damn, I wish I had mod points myself!
    I thought of that song immediately I saw the typo, too, but nowhere near that creatively....

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're easily impressed.

  60. Same with Outlook. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Once you have too many emails, search becomes impractical.

    Pine in Linux does a better job ....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  61. An alternative theory by dbacher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A lot of people are theorising OS here...

    Microsoft Avalon is an XML system for writing rich clients that operate on data stored on a server. For the technical people, you have a secure XML Web Service that provides the Model and Controller of a MVC application, and then you have the rich client providing the View and a proxy into the controller.

    I am not going to say "this is what Google is going," but Google would have to be scared about this, since in order to use these new features, you have to install a new Microsoft OS and IE, and in the process msn.com/search.msn.com probably take over the browser, and all their tools might not be loadable, etc.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft is pushing ease of deployment of applications and security of data as big selling points to this model. If your document never leaves the server, even when you are editing it, if you e-mail a link which is secured at the server, then the document itself becomes much more secure.

    And, of course, DRM is trivial when everything has to be routed through the server, too.

    If you're google, you're sitting there though going, well we can write XML Web Services, and we can write desktop applications. You might look to develop an alternative, say using Java and XUL for the client application.

    You might think user's trust us with their e-mail, and send sensitive documents. We could reuse our storage back end to store word processing documents, we could index them, and serve ads based on that information.

    You might think we could provide a word processor for free (as in cost) using this revenue, just as we provide search, webmail, etc. now.

    I'm not saying that is what they are doing, but it seems a lot more likely (since it would tie into Google's strongest traits as a company, including name recognition and perceived integrity) that developing a new operating system (which would be outside Google's current realm of strengths).

    --
    If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    1. Re:An alternative theory by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That sounds to me like a very good reason for Google to endorse Firefox....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  62. Capitalist Propaganda! ;) by localman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article:

    The Google-Microsoft competition is good news for consumers because it means more choices and better products

    Ah, right. Thanks. Just like the browser wars!

    Cheers.

  63. jeepers by joNDoty · · Score: 1

    Man, even business writers from Yahoo! News can't tell memory from storage. From the article:
    "And after Google announced plans for Gmail, a free e-mail service touting massive amounts of memory, Microsoft said it would boost free memory on its Hotmail accounts."

    Dude, since when do free email sites give out free memory? As much as I would like to upgrade from 512MB to a gig... Or maybe they mean their email servers have lots of memory! Aha, that must be it.

  64. Ummmm....... by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1

    Is Katz working for the associated press now or something?

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  65. What came first. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    The libraries of the OS?

    Now I woudln't call a set of libraries an operating system, and I'm sure that most operating systems re-use libraries that have been written before, so from the point of view of an OS either god created the libraries, or they arn't written from scratch.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.