Web standards take ages to finalize. Do people really think if Google wants to add a new feature to one of their web apps, and HTML5 doesn't support it, they won't just add a proprietary extension to Chrome/Chrome OS? Of course they will. In which case, if these units get too popular, Google could be the next IE/Microsoft.
Google may be more successful than Apple in being a serious threat to Microsoft. Although MacBooks are selling very well in USA, Apple still has a very small share in most non-US markets. For some strange reason, people want Microsoft products, even when they crash and don't work as expected. For example, people want Outlook even though they don't understand it (Outlook is very complicated and most people only use a very small part of it). It's a strange thing. I'd rather use OS X than Ubuntu, but a Google branded Linux may be a success. Microsoft, with Ballmer, is tired and nearing its end.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
Well, offhand I know I can get one point. :-)
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
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.
I disagree about the notebooks. Can you show the reason most people returned them was because of drivers? That's not the reason being given. The reason is software compatibility.
And as far as Star Office is concerned, it's, to all purposes, ann exact duplicate of Office, as is Open Office. So no excuse there. Star Office cost $75 a seat. Office is much more for the same number of seats. Open Office is free. This should have made a difference, but it didn't. People don't want alien software. They want what they feel safe with.
Linux is normally credited as being MORE stable than Windows.
Quote:
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.
Maybe. People want those crippling features. If they didn't, Windows wouldn't have over a 90% worldwide marketshare still.
I think you've got hopeful thoughts about the power of the Google brand. I don't. Google isn't known for having its name associated with computers. That will make it a very UNfamilliar brand.
And again, people could save $150 by getting Open Office for free—but they don't.
Quote:
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.
I doubt they'll do anything that will make the browser any more successful. It isn't in MS's interest to do so.
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
Yeah, well my point was that MS had it for Apple before themselves.
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.
But does the average person know that Star Office and OpenOffice even exist? I'm not so sure.
Microshit should either accept and move on with Chrome OS or Chrome OS will take Microshit by storm. All it takes is a stable distribution with the applications necessary to run the day to day work. Those things do exist in Linux community for a long time - but people are just used to the Windows and the enterprise and sales guys like to pay money for the services and solutions. A desktop with a Linux distribution and an office suite can be easily realized with $0 in software cost. But if it were a Microshit solution - it would cost the enterprise a per seat cost of anywhere between $300~$500. The sharepoint and outlook and Windows Servers take away money in big quantum when a equivalent MacOS server or a Linux server will be a bargain. (CALs cost big money)
Google being a leader in search and online advertisement - can easily educate and encourage the users. It can create additional pull factors for the people to move on to the Linux world.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
Linux can already do this. There are plenty of distros which run off a live CD without installing anything on your disk. There are also versions that run under Windows to give you a look and feel.
Prejudices and habits die hard. Microsoft is not in the primary business of selling computers or browsers. Silverlight is their vision of what should be done on the web.
Ballmer is a joke, really. Look what happens when you put the sales guy in charge.
Whatever Ballmy laughs off today, becomes wildly popular or game-changing tomorrow.
MS hasn't released a remotely compelling or game-changing product since 2001 (and XP was nothing to be proud of.) MS does successive versions (when they get around to it) of the worst mass-market OS in history and an Office suite. It all comes down to their licensing scheme. That's it.
Oh wait, the Xbox. Yes, that worked out well. One wonders where the rest of the R&D money is going.
I think OS X will probably suffer more to Chrome OS than MS will. People will still be force fed MS at work but at home they can by a cheap PC with Chrome OS with Google goodness integrated or splash out more for a MS PC or even more for a Mac. Most consumers want value rather than the best.
I think OS X will probably suffer more to Chrome OS than MS will. People will still be force fed MS at work but at home they can by a cheap PC with Chrome OS with Google goodness integrated or splash out more for a MS PC or even more for a Mac. Most consumers want cheap rather than the best.
5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Yeah, well my point was that MS had it for Apple before themselves.
While that may be a true statement, the challenge was to name where it originally came from. But I agree that AjitMD was mistaken.
xwiredtva, I formally request my one point!
A bit more:
- Microsoft's first spreadsheet was Multiplan, which was released in 1982, prior to Mac, however the first release named "Excel" was on the Mac in 1985, and not for Windows until 1987.
- Word, on the other hand, was first released as Microsoft Word for the IBM PC in 1983, prior to the public release of the first Mac. So unless Word existed for the Lisa, PCs had it first.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
I think you kind of hit the point here. While most people on these forums know about free and proven alternatives to both MS Office and Windows, the end user does not know. And maybe they don't care. Sheep need to be led. And the marketing machine at MS has very deep pockets, and are capable of convincing most people that even the worst product is a must have.
If Linux and Open Office had similar marketing budgets, or even a fraction of them, the awareness could get out there, and result in a higher install base. But it's not going to happen... unless someone with large pockets gets on board. Google is the most likely at this stage, so their entrance to the ring should be welcomed.
The only other alternative would be if all PC manufacturers unanimously agreed to dump MS and support Linux to potentially save money and gain back some control. But this won't happen either, because no one wants to be first, and even when someone does jump the MS ship, it will be alienated, most likely by the MS negative marketing campaign machine. So they all have to jump ship at the same time... wishful thinking.
Ya, I will laugh at Microsoft when Chrome OS is gonna be the next popular thing after iPhone. Microsoft has no innovation, the only thing they can do is gaming. So let them have that.
It only took buying Bungie, (maker of Games for the Mac) to gain that success in gaming.
Ballmer is a joke, really. Look what happens when you put the sales guy in charge.
Whatever Ballmy laughs off today, becomes wildly popular or game-changing tomorrow.
MS hasn't released a remotely compelling or game-changing product since 2001 (and XP was nothing to be proud of.) MS does successive versions (when they get around to it) of the worst mass-market OS in history and an Office suite. It all comes down to their licensing scheme. That's it.
Oh wait, the Xbox. Yes, that worked out well. One wonders where the rest of the R&D money is going.
A prefect metaphor for MS:
The first xbox didn't make a profit, and barely dented the PS2 dominance. Outside the US the first xbox was pretty insignificant. The 360 was rushed to market to get a head start on the PS3 and was plagued by some of the highest rate of hardware failures ever seen. And while it has gained traction now (moreso in the US than Europe or Asia) the Wii has well and truly trumped it. The 360 still doesn't make much in the way of profits either.
But I get your point about it being a relatively bright light. But really, the developers are the ones to thank for that. Because it started as a dud, developers may well have dumped it not for heavy marketing, being easier to program for, and of course getting to market a year or more before Wii and PS3. Lucky they had that year!
And of course buying Bungie and Halo saved the box from an early death!
Comments
I wonder how long it will take MS to create a browser based OS themselves...
I don't think they have the vision or the skills to do that, otherwise, they might have already.
Then again, they are now led by a marketer who knows a bit about software, not a software person who knows how to market
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.
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.
Well, offhand I know I can get one point. :-)
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
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.
I disagree about the notebooks. Can you show the reason most people returned them was because of drivers? That's not the reason being given. The reason is software compatibility.
And as far as Star Office is concerned, it's, to all purposes, ann exact duplicate of Office, as is Open Office. So no excuse there. Star Office cost $75 a seat. Office is much more for the same number of seats. Open Office is free. This should have made a difference, but it didn't. People don't want alien software. They want what they feel safe with.
Linux is normally credited as being MORE stable than Windows.
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.
Maybe. People want those crippling features. If they didn't, Windows wouldn't have over a 90% worldwide marketshare still.
I think you've got hopeful thoughts about the power of the Google brand. I don't. Google isn't known for having its name associated with computers. That will make it a very UNfamilliar brand.
And again, people could save $150 by getting Open Office for free—but they don't.
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.
I doubt they'll do anything that will make the browser any more successful. It isn't in MS's interest to do so.
Well, offhand I know I can get one point. :-)
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
Yeah, well my point was that MS had it for Apple before themselves.
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.
But does the average person know that Star Office and OpenOffice even exist? I'm not so sure.
Microshit should either accept and move on with Chrome OS or Chrome OS will take Microshit by storm. All it takes is a stable distribution with the applications necessary to run the day to day work. Those things do exist in Linux community for a long time - but people are just used to the Windows and the enterprise and sales guys like to pay money for the services and solutions. A desktop with a Linux distribution and an office suite can be easily realized with $0 in software cost. But if it were a Microshit solution - it would cost the enterprise a per seat cost of anywhere between $300~$500. The sharepoint and outlook and Windows Servers take away money in big quantum when a equivalent MacOS server or a Linux server will be a bargain. (CALs cost big money)
Google being a leader in search and online advertisement - can easily educate and encourage the users. It can create additional pull factors for the people to move on to the Linux world.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
Linux can already do this. There are plenty of distros which run off a live CD without installing anything on your disk. There are also versions that run under Windows to give you a look and feel.
Prejudices and habits die hard. Microsoft is not in the primary business of selling computers or browsers. Silverlight is their vision of what should be done on the web.
Whatever Ballmy laughs off today, becomes wildly popular or game-changing tomorrow.
MS hasn't released a remotely compelling or game-changing product since 2001 (and XP was nothing to be proud of.) MS does successive versions (when they get around to it) of the worst mass-market OS in history and an Office suite. It all comes down to their licensing scheme. That's it.
Oh wait, the Xbox. Yes, that worked out well. One wonders where the rest of the R&D money is going.
A prefect metaphor for MS:
When Steve Ballmer laughs something off, it bites him in the ass every time! Way to go Steve, now Google is destined to succeed.
I was going to say this.
I just don't know why Ballmer isn't seen as a liability to Microsoft.
5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from.
MS didn't write the original PowerPoint. It was originally a Mac-only piece of software written by a company called Forethought. I remember it from the very earliest Mac days. Microsoft liked the software, bought the company and morphed it into PowerPoint. I remember being quite irked at the time.
Yeah, well my point was that MS had it for Apple before themselves.
While that may be a true statement, the challenge was to name where it originally came from.
xwiredtva, I formally request my one point!
A bit more:
- Microsoft's first spreadsheet was Multiplan, which was released in 1982, prior to Mac, however the first release named "Excel" was on the Mac in 1985, and not for Windows until 1987.
- Word, on the other hand, was first released as Microsoft Word for the IBM PC in 1983, prior to the public release of the first Mac. So unless Word existed for the Lisa, PCs had it first.
Linux has typically failed in past because of obscurity. It's a geeky operating system that hardly anyone in general public knows much about & most don't really care.
Chrome OS would be much different as Google has the perfect PR platform from which to launch their product & they are a very trusted name so people would associate it with quality.
If they can somehow package a demo of chrome OS that would run all self contained inside Windows they could really hit MS hard. Do a whole "If this is how it runs inside of Windows, imagine how it performs without the bloat." Oh man, now that would really hit home.
I think you kind of hit the point here. While most people on these forums know about free and proven alternatives to both MS Office and Windows, the end user does not know. And maybe they don't care. Sheep need to be led. And the marketing machine at MS has very deep pockets, and are capable of convincing most people that even the worst product is a must have.
If Linux and Open Office had similar marketing budgets, or even a fraction of them, the awareness could get out there, and result in a higher install base. But it's not going to happen... unless someone with large pockets gets on board. Google is the most likely at this stage, so their entrance to the ring should be welcomed.
The only other alternative would be if all PC manufacturers unanimously agreed to dump MS and support Linux to potentially save money and gain back some control. But this won't happen either, because no one wants to be first, and even when someone does jump the MS ship, it will be alienated, most likely by the MS negative marketing campaign machine. So they all have to jump ship at the same time... wishful thinking.
Ya, I will laugh at Microsoft when Chrome OS is gonna be the next popular thing after iPhone. Microsoft has no innovation, the only thing they can do is gaming. So let them have that.
It only took buying Bungie, (maker of Games for the Mac) to gain that success in gaming.
Ballmer is a joke, really. Look what happens when you put the sales guy in charge.
Whatever Ballmy laughs off today, becomes wildly popular or game-changing tomorrow.
MS hasn't released a remotely compelling or game-changing product since 2001 (and XP was nothing to be proud of.) MS does successive versions (when they get around to it) of the worst mass-market OS in history and an Office suite. It all comes down to their licensing scheme. That's it.
Oh wait, the Xbox. Yes, that worked out well. One wonders where the rest of the R&D money is going.
A prefect metaphor for MS:
The first xbox didn't make a profit, and barely dented the PS2 dominance. Outside the US the first xbox was pretty insignificant. The 360 was rushed to market to get a head start on the PS3 and was plagued by some of the highest rate of hardware failures ever seen. And while it has gained traction now (moreso in the US than Europe or Asia) the Wii has well and truly trumped it. The 360 still doesn't make much in the way of profits either.
But I get your point about it being a relatively bright light. But really, the developers are the ones to thank for that. Because it started as a dud, developers may well have dumped it not for heavy marketing, being easier to program for, and of course getting to market a year or more before Wii and PS3. Lucky they had that year!
And of course buying Bungie and Halo saved the box from an early death!
This guy is a douche bag plain and simple.
Ballmer pisses me off. Time for someone new to take his job. Someone with some vision.
This guy is a douche bag plain and simple.
Give the whole show to Sinofsky, maybe?
In any case, I'd love to be Ballmer's Dry Cleaning service. Big business.