Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Other Rivals Slam Google Chrome OS
CWmike writes "Microsoft is, predictably, not all that impressed by Google Inc.'s demonstration of its upcoming Chrome OS. 'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. 'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works — across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs — purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.' But neither were potential rivals who make Linux and instant-on operating systems. Chrome OS claimed 7-second boot times and the ability to run Web apps within another 3 seconds, which failed to impress Woody Hobbs, president and CEO of Phoenix Technologies, a long-time BIOS software maker that has re-invented itself with a Linux-based instant-on OS called HyperSpace. 'Instant-on is about being able to access your Internet applications in one second. Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said. 'There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on."' Mark Lee, CEO of DeviceVM Inc., said Google's favoritism towards its own browser and Web apps could rub some users the wrong way, especially those outside of the US. 'In China, users prefer Baidu, not Google,' Lee said. DeviceVM's Splashtop platform boots into Firefox within seconds and uses Yahoo or Baidu as default search engines instead of Google."
...it has NEVER been the most technically superior OS.
Is is the OS that runs all our apps.
Chrome and BIOS OSes do not change this.
Fast boot times don't matter if I have to dump my apps. Fast app launch times don't matter if I have to dump my apps.
They are competing directly, but Google's friendlier. Google is making an appliance OS, where as SplashTop is designed as a light fast-booting OS.
But almost everyone is using a strawman (as Microsoft is). The point is not to replace Windows, it's an OS for web surfing. It's not for playing World of Warcraft, doing heavy photo editing, video editing, etc. Everyone is writing the "Google vs. Microsoft" article they want to write, instead of the tougher article about how Google is basically working to define a new class of computer (something of a netbook that's not running a general OS).
It's web-TV, but not on TV and not horrible. It's an email appliance OS that lets you read the web pages people link to in their emails.
It's not a direct shot at MS and Apple.
Gruber gets another one right.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Has he booted a smartphone recently? It takes around 30 seconds for my Nokia smartphone to boot up. Of course, the point he's probably making is that smartphones are always on and therefore always accessible, but to achieve that surely you'd instead have to work towards reducing the idle power consumption of PCs...
I haven't seen a recent smartphone that is on (and I don't mean, "displays something", I mean "fully usable") within 7 seconds. Even if you factor out the ID number input, 7 seconds is not too far fetched for current phones, overcramped with "features".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And it "just works" on ARM processors? So "PC" should really be "x86-based PC".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The reason your customers won't be interested in Chrome OS as a replacement for 7 is the same reason pickup-truck drivers aren't interested in motorcycles as replacements.
It's scratching a different itch, although I'm a little skeptical that anyone's seriously itching hard for a minimal OS capable of running only a web browser.
If they're all so scared enough to give it this much attention, it /must/ be good.
So instead of leaving xp, they're staying in droves!
Ice Cream has no bones.
I'm not sure what type of phone ol' Woody Hobbs uses... but I think that's kind of a flawed analogy at best. Over the years, my phones from a cold start have taken easily 5 - 10 seconds to post up (...and that includes the gracious amount of Verizon Wireless foo that flashes around at the beginning) Regardless of the pounding Chrome OS is taking, 7 second boot up time with instant access is killer. Really that's not any less/more than my Acer AspireOne + LinuxMint coming back up from hibernation mode. I'm really anxious to give Chrome OS a spin. Just like people argue for the sake of arguing, I think it's safe to say people also ridicule for the sake of ridiculing.
> Seven seconds is too long,' Hobbs said.
For instant on it is. FOr a quick boot it's ok.
> There is no such thing as "cold boot" for today's mobile PCs such as netbooks and smartbooks. You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone -- a
> press of a button and you are "on."' M
My smartphone (HTC Touch Diamond) is nothing like that. From pressing the reset button (near where the stylus lives) to doing anything is around a minute. 7 seconds would be a massive improvement.
Does Google's OS include the BIOS in those 7 seconds?
My problem with the Google OS is I don't really want an OS with no hard drive and everything living on the net somewhere out of my control. I want to copy my photos onto my hard drive(s), convert them (from RAW) etc etc. I can't be doing all that over the net with 11 meg images, over a possibly slow, and definately hostile internet connection.
Looks interesting => We don't give a shit.
Looks bad => Oh shit, we are screwed.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I've lived in large cities most of my life and since 1995 have had readily accessible internet.
But this last summer and fall I spent my time at our family cabin in northern Wisconsin. Let me tell you, always connected means squat here (because it's just not an option - even dialup, particularly with the economy being what it is these days). OS stability means everything.
I've been able to work in the north woods just fine, knowing that I can drive into town and connect to the internet when I need to email something, etc.). But an OS that needs internet connection does me absolutely no good in these parts.
I suspect a large part of America would agree with me on that.
You should be able to use your netbook like you use your smartphone — a press of a button and you are "on."'
Maybe Phoenix shouldn't be bashing on Google in that comparison. I *wish* my Windows smart phone booted in 7 seconds. It's more like 30-45. It turns on, displays a retarded 8-second AT&T animated logo, continues booting slowly, pops up and asks for a password (but you have to wait 10-15 seconds before you can actually type because Windows is still loading), and then finally you're at your phone desktop. ...except none of the buttons work for another 10 seconds while even more crap loads.
Phoenix has bigger fish to bash over the head with a cluebat before they complain about Google and 7 seconds.
There's no place like
As far as I'm concerned, I hope Microsoft continues to think of ChromeOS as just a toy that will never be a serious contender with Windows outside of very limited niche devices.
They'll consider it a competitor as soon as its market share proportion has at least one significant digit to the left of the decimal point. Just look what happened to Linux!
It's a toy until it starts taking up significant portions of Microsoft's client-side OS market share.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
It's for your friends and relatives who drive you mad with tech support questions. Send them a $100 box, tell them to switch the cables out, and get on with your life.
ChromeOS is obviously intended for netbooks, which already have that.
One of the main features of ARM CPUs is the low energy usage. Combined with auto-suspend when not in use, and it can get full days of autonomy.
http://gears.google.com/
Current SSD based netbooks don't have much storage space, and yet have been selling nicely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice
Dilbert RSS feed
Atom based netbooks are already too slow for anything *but* web surfing
Horse cow pie poopies!!! A Dell Mini 10v with 2GB RAM and 320GB 7200RPM HD running Photoshop CS4 under Mac OS X 10.6.2 is a little bit more than "anything *but* web surfing". Lest you still wet behind the ears 20-somethings have forgotten that today's Netbook is just as powerful as a several year old desktop (or laptop!) that was used to run things like Photoshop, Autocad, Quark, Office, Eclipse and many other real world productivity applications.
watch a company out-Microsoft Microsoft
Which is why I don't use Google or any of their products and hopefully never will. Google is setting itself up to be as big or an even bigger threat than Microsoft has been to our freedom.
They are trying to monopolize internet communication itself. They are trying to control both the content and the interface by which you access it. They have their hands in e-books, internet videos, cellphones, operating systems, search, advertising, e-mail, applications, browsers, computer hardware and much more. They may not succeed, but there is no doubt they are trying.
They may be beneficent now, but most corporations have an authoritarian hierarchy and all it will take is a change of leadership for things to change and I, for one, don't want anyone having that much power in their eventually corrupted hands.
It may seem wise to some that the enemy (Google) of their enemy (Microsoft) is their friend, but history has shown that most revolutions wind up just instituting a different authoritarian regime of their own, despite their best intentions. I hope I'm wrong, but I would very wary of what Google has the potential to become in the future.
Not so. Ballmer still refers to Apple as a rounding error. They already have significants digit(s) to the left of the decimal. MS has blinders on lately, and the dogs are past nipping on their heels. They are biting their ankles. Get enough dogs, and they can bring down any big animal.
Not a good year for Microsoft.
Saying that you don't see something is a very different statement than saying that something isn't there. I don't quite see the compelling nature either but I'm willing to believe it's there. I haven't played with it yet but I'm sure I will. It's got tremendous buzz. The developer community is already all over this thing. I think as a VM for hosted desktop solutions it may have some merits - low cost, small footprint, minimal complexity, cloud storage. We'll see. I disagree with your assessment but respect it given your experience and intelligence.
As for pricing, well, not everything is about money.
It's Linux underneath so it's as much of a general OS as any. I'm sure all of the general drivers and applications can be added back in to make it a supercomputer compute node, file and print server, webserver, database server or full blown desktop, but that's probably not the point of the thing. As for the Droid, Sergey Brin has already said there's a good chance that Chrome OS and Android will converge into one OS eventually.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I hope Microsoft continues to think of ChromeOS as just a toy that will never be a serious contender with Windows outside of very limited niche devices.
As other posters have already pointed out, Microsoft (and others) are probably right about it never being a serious competitor to Windows, Linux, or indeed any other "full" operating system; but then again it isn't trying to be serious contender to full service operating systems. This is not to say that Google couldn't convert chrome into one, but what would be the point? If they were going to do that then why not just build or sponsor their own general purpose Linux distribution? Why re-invent the wheel? Google is trying to serve what they believe to be a substantial niche audience with a product designed to do a subset of standard OS functions quickly, easily, and cheaply. There is nothing wrong with recognizing and serving a niche, lots of companies do that. Given that there are many non-tech people out there in need of something simpler, like ChromeOS, I think that Google is probably on to something.
their approval of the way Windows 7 just works
So, Microsoft is now imitating Apple's moniker. Of course, it's b.s. from both Microsoft and Apple: when you buy their systems, you get an OS and a bunch of accessory applications. You then need to install the application software you actually want to use. And then you can get ready for being pestered constantly by applications that want to update themselves, security warnings, and all that other crap that comes with desktop OSes.
Do you dictate that for everyone or am I perhaps allowed to choose for myself what device best suit me? I would rather use ChromeOS for that then a crappy phone (no, iphones are not "smart" when used for non-phone/computer stuff no matter what apple says) and who would want to buy a Wii to browse the web while playing on your Xbox or Playstation and then have to either have two TV's or switch channels back and forth? Saying there is no market for ChromeOS is like saying there is no market for a underpowered console like the Wii. I own a laptop but I never use it to browse or anything like that. It is a "Take with me when I fix computers for others-device". Why would I want to boot a slow laptop when my multi-core PC is in the same room and even boots faster? Yes, there IS a place for a small device used only for browsing and other web applications IF it does not come with a screen as small as a tiny phone who dreams of one day becoming a PC (Well, a MAC actually).
Atoms are doing just fine. But you have to remember that we are talking computers here. No matter what you say about them someone will come by with anecdotal evidence that prove otherwise. Like *their* 128 kbps MP3's sound way better than FLAC and so on. It is a lost cause defending stuff like this here.
I'll point out one thing that you are indirectly stating - people aren't buying netbooks as netbooks. They're buying netbooks as cheap notebooks or sub-notebooks. That's why Linux netbooks are really failing, and why Windows XP Home did so well when Microsoft started selling it for use on netbooks. And why Chrome OS won't help. They're selling to people who want a cheap computer, not a netbook as a concept. They actually do want (or need) to run their own applications.
Netbook video - 1024x600 sucks. Anything below 1366x768 in widescreen just doesn't give you enough real estate for a lot of modern applications. It's the vertical resolution that gets you. A lot of apps are designed for a minimum of 768 vertically.
I suspect that we're going to see a new category cropping up - take a look at things like the Acer Timeline series. $600 can land you a Core 2 Duo SU7300, 11.6" 1366x768 screen with LED backlight, 4GB of RAM, a 320GB hard drive, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth and b/g/n wireles. Oh, yeah, S/PDIF and HDMI output as well as VGA, 3 USB ports and an integrated card reader. And it weighs 3.08 pounds with a 6-cell battery with (supposedly) 8 hours of battery life. Assuming it's 60% of the rating, that's still not bad. And that's not much more money than the "better" netbooks. Once you bulk out a Mini 10v with an upgraded processor, hard drive, bluetooth, etc. you're up over $400. Also, comes with a 64-bit Home Premium version of Windows 7, not 32-bit Starter. That's a good computer for a lot of people.
I also think you're overstating your case - an N270 or N280 is not as fast as a Core 2 Duo that came out 3 years ago. Sure, go back to the Pentium-D perhaps. Maybe.