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."
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.
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.