Missing NT 4.0 in the story. That was a notable OS of theirs. The start of the best Windows OS ever made, Windows 2000.
There keyboards and mice are good... Well the ones Logitech puts their names on. I don't game much by my nephew said the Xbox is really good in it's current form.
Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from.
Google has one HUGE obsticle though... More than 40-60% (don't have the exact figure, don't feel like looking it up but it's HIGH) linux Netbooks were returned.
Of the remaining FEW linux machines out there after 3 months less than half of them had linux still installed.
So are the manufactures gonna give linux another shot?
Consumers return Linux machines because they are a complex amalgam of X Window/Gnome or KDE with millions of choices for users to pick from and sort out. Making web-based netbooks that only worked as a browser, yet could run local browser apps to do anything from media playback to writing to basic HTML 5 games would result in a different class of computer.
That's clearly what Google is targeting, and it makes sense. Far more sense than giving consumers a desktop that looks like Windows but is really Linux under the hood.
Windows Mobile users look at the iPhone and say "wheres the file browser and task manager?"
I think Google looked at the iPhone and said, "hey, a solution-oriented web OS makes far more sense than trying to scale Android up and establish it across both mobiles and netbook-style PCs."
Android has taken off REALLY slowly in the phone market. Is Google going to float it on netbooks any faster? Why not shove Chrome and HTML 5 into the mainstream and let the company focus its efforts on web apps, something Google actually has experience with, rather than a desktop platform that the company has no experience pulling off.
Fuck Ballmer, and Fuck his shitty company known as Microsoft. The Xbox branch is the only thing that comes out of that fucking comapny.
I am surprised he is not shitting bricks right now. He should be very afraid of Apple and Google. These companies are going to fuck Microsoft up beyond repair. One day, Microsoft is going to be a dim memory, and a sad fucking story on a page of Wikipedia.
MS is not in touch with reality. My older brother is your less than average PC user and he was complaining yesterday about IE and how he love Chrome speed (Personally I prefer Safari since I use Mac). Microsoft is sinking ship and they will start losing market share slowly as many younger users and IT graduate start using the newer and alternative software technologies.
Chrome OS might not be a hit when it is released but all Google need to do is keep moving forward and they will start gaining market share. Google is the only one with the resources to do that.
Sergey Brin should just kick his ass. Just walk up to him, and be straight up, "What you sayin' 'bout Chrome OS ****?!? I already heard!" and drop him. Pow- one hit- Sergey's fist- his face- his face- the floor.
Then Sergey be like, "Do no evil? **** And then he rollerblade on out of there.
That is an extremely unlikely string of events, but I do have to admit I would digg it.
Because Google is putting their name on it, it will push sales. The only thing the average Joe knows how to use is the browser. Since the OS is based around the browser it would be an advantage. Chances are it will be a lot more stable and better driver support than Ubuntu.
Google and Apple is forcing Microsoft to play on their own terms. There is no way Microsoft can compete with free because Windows is a direct source of proft and Apple rules the high end market.
Microsoft looks like a company that is slowly dying. It reminds me of Sony. They are trying to do a thousand different things in which they become good at nothing while their competitors are attacking their core business. Google is going right after Windows. What is Microsoft doing? They announce that they are going to copy Spotify even though they don't know how they're going to do it.
People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.
Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.
But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.
Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.
"Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from." - xwiredtva
I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.
People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.
Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.
But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.
Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.
But I'm skeptical about Chrome so far.
Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.
It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.
"Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from." - xwiredtva
I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.
All I can recall about it was that most of the programs were written for the Macintosh long before they ever appeared on PC's.
Microsoft Office is basically a copy of the Apple Lisa "Office" done around 1982. Later on various pieces were made for MacOS in 1984 or so. Windows 3.0 was essentially a copy of the Mac or even Lisa OS complete with Copy, Cut, Past, etc. Anyway, Steve Jobs got the inspiration from the Xerox PARC work. Anybody who has been around may correct me on my fading memory.
Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.
It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.
When we say "viable" we mean that technically, they can replace some of the most used functionality.
That's true. but it also means that people will want to use these apps instead. That's something different, and I doubt it.
Lets look at Star Office from Sun. Completely compatible with Office, and far cheaper. It's free alternative, OpenOffice is also available.
Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.
But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.
It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.
I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?
Microsoft Office is basically a copy of the Apple Lisa "Office" done around 1982. Later on various pieces were made for MacOS in 1984 or so. Windows 3.0 was essentially a copy of the Mac or even Lisa OS complete with Copy, Cut, Past, etc. Anyway, Steve Jobs got the inspiration from the Xerox PARC work. Anybody who has been around may correct me on my fading memory.
I don't know, that sounds kind of squirrelly.
From what I remember, Apple paid MS to write Word, Excel, and some other programs as well as Basic. Later MS wrote Powerpoint for Apple.
2.\tPsychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
2. Normally, Steve Balmer's name would be here next to 2 but the publishers have decided it would be too insulting to the previous definitions for them to be in the same definition.
When we say "viable" we mean that technically, they can replace some of the most used functionality.
That's true. but it also means that people will want to use these apps instead. That's something different, and I doubt it.
Lets look at Star Office from Sun. Completely compatible with Office, and far cheaper. It's free alternative, OpenOffice is also available.
Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.
But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.
It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.
I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?
I agree on some things but disagree on others. I also question the viability of something like Google Docs considering that very few people actually use it. The reason Star Office never took off is because Office was always an alternative if you used Windows. The netbook craze proved that people would be willing to move away from Windows and Office. The reason people returned netbooks running Linux was because the OS was lack of driver support and the instability of the OS. Google could alleviate both of those problems because they are Google.
A Google netbook could cost anywhere from $50-$100 less than a Windows counterpart and wouldn't have to deal with the crippling of features by Microsoft. In a bad economy people will always give that a second look especially if it has the Google brand on it. This is not even considering the savings from the $150 Office student version. That alone is the price of two netbooks.
I admit I made a mistake about Chrome. I was talking about the browser and not the OS. Microsoft would have to make Silverlight for Chrome OS for OWC to work.
Comments
Missing NT 4.0 in the story. That was a notable OS of theirs. The start of the best Windows OS ever made, Windows 2000.
There keyboards and mice are good... Well the ones Logitech puts their names on. I don't game much by my nephew said the Xbox is really good in it's current form.
Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from.
Lotus 123?
5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from.
Wordstar, Lotus 123, Harvard Graphics, Mosaic,........
Google has one HUGE obsticle though... More than 40-60% (don't have the exact figure, don't feel like looking it up but it's HIGH) linux Netbooks were returned.
Of the remaining FEW linux machines out there after 3 months less than half of them had linux still installed.
So are the manufactures gonna give linux another shot?
Consumers return Linux machines because they are a complex amalgam of X Window/Gnome or KDE with millions of choices for users to pick from and sort out. Making web-based netbooks that only worked as a browser, yet could run local browser apps to do anything from media playback to writing to basic HTML 5 games would result in a different class of computer.
That's clearly what Google is targeting, and it makes sense. Far more sense than giving consumers a desktop that looks like Windows but is really Linux under the hood.
Windows Mobile users look at the iPhone and say "wheres the file browser and task manager?"
I think Google looked at the iPhone and said, "hey, a solution-oriented web OS makes far more sense than trying to scale Android up and establish it across both mobiles and netbook-style PCs."
Android has taken off REALLY slowly in the phone market. Is Google going to float it on netbooks any faster? Why not shove Chrome and HTML 5 into the mainstream and let the company focus its efforts on web apps, something Google actually has experience with, rather than a desktop platform that the company has no experience pulling off.
I am surprised he is not shitting bricks right now. He should be very afraid of Apple and Google. These companies are going to fuck Microsoft up beyond repair. One day, Microsoft is going to be a dim memory, and a sad fucking story on a page of Wikipedia.
Chrome OS might not be a hit when it is released but all Google need to do is keep moving forward and they will start gaining market share. Google is the only one with the resources to do that.
Then Sergey be like, "Do no evil? **** And then he rollerblade on out of there.
That is an extremely unlikely string of events, but I do have to admit I would digg it.
EDIT: language
Because Google is putting their name on it, it will push sales. The only thing the average Joe knows how to use is the browser. Since the OS is based around the browser it would be an advantage. Chances are it will be a lot more stable and better driver support than Ubuntu.
Google and Apple is forcing Microsoft to play on their own terms. There is no way Microsoft can compete with free because Windows is a direct source of proft and Apple rules the high end market.
Microsoft looks like a company that is slowly dying. It reminds me of Sony. They are trying to do a thousand different things in which they become good at nothing while their competitors are attacking their core business. Google is going right after Windows. What is Microsoft doing? They announce that they are going to copy Spotify even though they don't know how they're going to do it.
People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.
Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.
But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.
Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.
But I'm skeptical about Chrome so far.
I don't like editing, or deleting people's posts, so don't make me do it.
I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.
People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.
Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.
But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.
Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.
But I'm skeptical about Chrome so far.
Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.
It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.
"Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from." - xwiredtva
I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.
All I can recall about it was that most of the programs were written for the Macintosh long before they ever appeared on PC's.
Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.
It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.
When we say "viable" we mean that technically, they can replace some of the most used functionality.
That's true. but it also means that people will want to use these apps instead. That's something different, and I doubt it.
Lets look at Star Office from Sun. Completely compatible with Office, and far cheaper. It's free alternative, OpenOffice is also available.
Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.
But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.
It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.
I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?
Here's Ballmer's take on it:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...os_threat.html
Microsoft Office is basically a copy of the Apple Lisa "Office" done around 1982. Later on various pieces were made for MacOS in 1984 or so. Windows 3.0 was essentially a copy of the Mac or even Lisa OS complete with Copy, Cut, Past, etc. Anyway, Steve Jobs got the inspiration from the Xerox PARC work. Anybody who has been around may correct me on my fading memory.
I don't know, that sounds kind of squirrelly.
From what I remember, Apple paid MS to write Word, Excel, and some other programs as well as Basic. Later MS wrote Powerpoint for Apple.
What a tool!
?noun
1.\tan utterly foolish or senseless person.
2.\tPsychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
Synonyms:
1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull. *
2. Normally, Steve Balmer's name would be here next to 2 but the publishers have decided it would be too insulting to the previous definitions for them to be in the same definition.
* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot
When we say "viable" we mean that technically, they can replace some of the most used functionality.
That's true. but it also means that people will want to use these apps instead. That's something different, and I doubt it.
Lets look at Star Office from Sun. Completely compatible with Office, and far cheaper. It's free alternative, OpenOffice is also available.
Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.
But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.
It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.
I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?
Here's Ballmer's take on it:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...os_threat.html
I agree on some things but disagree on others. I also question the viability of something like Google Docs considering that very few people actually use it. The reason Star Office never took off is because Office was always an alternative if you used Windows. The netbook craze proved that people would be willing to move away from Windows and Office. The reason people returned netbooks running Linux was because the OS was lack of driver support and the instability of the OS. Google could alleviate both of those problems because they are Google.
A Google netbook could cost anywhere from $50-$100 less than a Windows counterpart and wouldn't have to deal with the crippling of features by Microsoft. In a bad economy people will always give that a second look especially if it has the Google brand on it. This is not even considering the savings from the $150 Office student version. That alone is the price of two netbooks.
I admit I made a mistake about Chrome. I was talking about the browser and not the OS. Microsoft would have to make Silverlight for Chrome OS for OWC to work.