Slashdot Mirror
Sergey Brin: Windows Is "Torturing Users"
jbrodkin writes "Google created Chrome OS because Windows is 'torturing users,' Google co-founder Sergey Brin says. Only about 20% of Google employees use Windows, with the rest on Mac and Linux, and Brin hopes that by next year nearly all Googlers will be using Chromebooks. 'With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users,' Brin told reporters at Google I/O. 'It's torturing everyone in this room. It's a flawed model fundamentally. Chromebooks are a new model that doesn't put the burden of managing the computer on yourself.' Google claims 75% of business users could be moved from Windows computers to Chrome laptops."
I love how "With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users" becomes "With Microsoft, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users"
Really? This passes for a story, this is a blatant ad.
I feel no torture as I write this from my Windows box.
Company bringing out product says competition bad. News at 11.
Negative quote about "Microsoft and others" summarised on Slashdot as negative quote about Microsoft. News at 11.
Is anyone else as bored of this shit as me?
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
They use Linux (amongst others) because managing Windows is too complex. Seriously?
This time around, the big difference is, Google has a revenue stream, some independence from Windows and management has some proven track record. But they are not competing against Windows95 either. Every niche from phone size all the way to 35 inch cine screen, from sub Gig memory machines all the way up to 128 GB monsters, are fully populated and variety of processors and OSes and business models proliferate. May be Chromachines will cut through the clutter and succeed. Or not. Only time will tell.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The things [exclusively] Windows users experience passes for "normal" most of the time and they never realize the abuses they deal with on a regular basis.
These things simply don't exist in other OSes. Things like shutting down taking almost as much time as starting up? What could be going on in the background in the shut-down process that could or should take so long?
But to be fair, it's not just Microsoft Windows that is the cause -- it's all those damned vendors who feel like they need to install a "quick load widget" with every program. And guess what happens when EVERYTHING installs one of those? Yup! (Damn you HP and all the rest! We don't want you quick-launchers and your damned ink/toner monitors!! We don't want your convenient drag and drop DVD burner tray applet!!)
This is what really tortures users. Any one of these things by themselves are not so bad. But any combination of them will cause torture.
If you read between the lines, this is a play to take away a user's ability to change the system rather than hiding that complexity to make the system easier to use. The difference is, in principle, about who ultimately controls the system. Google are going to roll out an Apple-like OS that locks the users in and make the same claim Apple makes about a better user experience to justify their choices.
Also, as a random aside, any company which moves their staff to Linux has lost a lot of legitimacy when they claim they have interests in bringing up the standard of usability or the user experience. Linux is far worse than Windows in terms of user experience (& complexity). I wouldn't even compare Linux to Windows 7, I would compare Windows 95 to Ubuntu 11, and honestly feel Windows 95 would win that battle.
Last point, I bet 70% non-Windows, means at least 60% on OS X, and approximately 10% on Linux.
Most users I know can not be trusted with managing their own system. Common users switch of UAC, clearing the path for virusses. Common users use outdated licenses of useless AV packages (so they will not get updates) clearing the path for virusses. Common users feel backups are a waste of time or forget about them. Common users install stuff to watch pr0n or puppies. Common users click links in mails from friends, even if it's clear the mail wasn't actually send by said friends. Common users don't know shit about how to use a computer responsibly.
For them a Chromebook could be a good solution.
I am not a common user (although I am not above doing stupid things). I want to be able to configure my system to MY preferences, not some default that makes me cringe in some corners of usage.
As with everything: there is no such thing as a single perfect solution.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
I'd like to see a DBA, or anybody in IT for that matter, run Chrome OS nearly exclusively. That would be torture.
And I don't have to spend any undue amounts of time "managing" my computer. Maybe a new software package here and there, an occasional security update, driver update, etc. It's less effort than the real work I do, that's for sure.
Hi all. Where's my Compiler & distributed revision control? (GCC, GIT), Why can't I rewind a Google Doc? Where's my local LAMP stack? Postgresql? SQLite? Code folding and syntax highlighting in Google docs? Not there? B-But, it's running on top of GNU/Linux. I know it's using some of this underneath, why can't I access it within ChromeOS? This hurts, it's the most limited OS I've ever seen short of on a dumb "smart phone".
No thanks, I've already got all of the benefits of Google's model of cloud storage... I'll keep using my traditional model of robust "cloud" storage: An editor with auto-save enabled, editing files in a local GIT repo, with a cron job doing git commit & git push every 5 minutes or so. Note: that remote repo -- it's part of my private cloud; I also have a cron job that creates a daily private bittorrent of my media collection -- my other PCs rsync the torrent & use BT to distributively sync the media folders I've selected them to store. Bonus, when I'm offline I still have access to all the important data, and some of whatever entertainment data I'm liking right now.
I've had Windows XP for almost ten years now, and I don't have to "manage" anything. Every year or so I wipe the drive with a fresh XP-CD install, and need to reinstall my favorite programs, but that would be true of any OS, whether it's Mac, Lubuntu, or Chrome.
Seriously? Do you really need to?
I've got a Windows 2000 install that's still going strong at 10 years old, and a couple of XP installs well over 5 years old. We even have a couple of Linux systems that have been running continuously longer than you keep Windows XP around - we only had to restart them during a UPS replacement. The Mac OSes only get upgrades (which counts as an install, I guess) when The Steve unveils a new version, so the system OS install I'm using right now is however old 10.6 is (about a year and a half). I have an install of OS X 10.5 on a PPC Mac at home that is still working just fine after 5 years.
So, this begs the question, what are you doing to screw up your XP installs in a year?
Even my boss, the resident malware catcher (seriously, I think he actively tries to get malware on his system) is using a three year old install of XP.
I think you'd be safe to extend your reinstall interval.
Putting moderation advice in your
I think he meant to say "It's torturing me that more people aren't sending us all of their data."
...I'm pretty sure Linux ain't the cure.
I'm a chip designer. While I've always been very good at software, I prefer hardware, and as I have moved more and more in that direction, I have come to feel that software stuff is mostly bullshit. Software is the stuff you write to give high level direction to the hardware. So why is everyone doing such a crap job of it? Ok, I've written GUI-based apps, plenty, and it's not easy to make a really intuitive interface. But I still can't see how CEOs of software companies like Microsoft can look at themselves in the mirror. They spend billions of dollars developing software that is absolutely horrid at automating the most basic of tasks. Computers are fantastic at fast, repetitive tasks. Making your PC connect to wireless reliably is one such task. So why can't they make it work right 100% of the time? I should never ever have to type in something that the computer can look up for itself. I should never have to do maintenance that's obvious. There are many unexpected things that happen as a result of bugs (these are unintentional) and hardware failure (shit happens). These are the times when someone has to look under the hood, because the result is largely unanticipated. This is reasonable. However, if there is something in a textbook that you can teach to someone, then it's KNOWN, and it should damn well be automated. If you can make a human procedure for it, you can make a software procedure for it. (And I'm talking about simple stuff, not computer vision or SPAM detection, although SPAM detection is automated and quite good. Irony?)
Not EVERY action can be anticipated, otherwise there would be no need for user interfaces at all. It's the things that have to be done the same way every time for everyone that should be automated. Interestingly, some software is trying to be smart and anticipate. Like automatic text substitution and spellchecking. Those don't always work right, but at least they're trying, and they're getting better at it. Similiarly, there's the way browser URL bars and search bars try to anticipate what you're trying to type and give you suggestions based on what others have done. Those are awesome (pun intended).
I actually use the command line a lot. For instance, I compile stuff using gcc. That's me doing development, not admining the machine. I also sometimes do stuff using bash that could be done using Finder (yes, I use a Mac, but I have Windows in a VM, and I have a Linux server at home). Again, that's me doing something I want to do with my files. But for the most part, you should just be able to turn your computer on, and have it get the hell out of the way of what you want to do. Want to type email? You select the Mail app, click the Compose button, and off you go. Aside from perhaps a few security measures (some of which are also lazy bullshit in the way they're designed), nothing should get in the way of that action.
Now, some of you out there like mucking about with the innards of their operating system. And that's cool for you. I know about this stuff do, and I do it better than most software engineers or CS grads. (Indeed, someone must know this, so that someone can write the OS and program the automated procedures.) But for MOST people, including those of us who have Ph.D.s in Computer Science, we have OTHER WORK TO DO. And this software bullshit (or bullshit software) is just SLOWING US DOWN.
Dude, Just because you fix her PC, It doesn't make her your girlfriend.