Gratitude is the sign of noble souls - Aesop
|
|
|
Ballmer mocks Google's Chrome OS
SHY AND SOFT-SPOKEN Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has been quietly putting down Google's new Chrome OS.
Ballmer mimed that the move leaves Google with two operating systems, something that Microsoft learned the hard way was not a good idea.
"I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there. The last time I checked you don't need two client operating systems," Steve said.
Talking to CNET, he pointed out that when the Vole had separate business and consumer operating systems, back in the days of Windows 95 and Windows NT, it all ended in tears. Well, other than the multi-billion dollar quarterly profits of course.
Ballmer also admitted that he does not really know what Chrome OS will look like. He said that it is very interesting, it won't happen for a year and a half and Google already has an operating system called Android.
The Vole does not need to learn anything from Google's approach, he said, adding that Microsoft doesn't need a new operating system, it needs to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, and Internet Exploder.
He said that half the time people are using their PC they are doing something that is not in the browser and Windows is the operating system for the job.
Ballmer also said Microsoft will continue its advertising that targets Apple. He said it was important to "tell the story of the PC." We don't know what he meant by that, however he seems to be unconcerned about Google and still worried that Apple makes Microsoft look like a nerd. µ
Share this:
Share
""you can do everything you have mentioned in a browser"
So, you can run anything that needs a .exe or .bin in a browser without windows? Neat trick!"
Learn how to read "Mike", I didn't say you can run .exe files in a browser, I said you can run web apps - both online and offline. Geez, bloody newbies.
LMAO!!! i cant stop laughing at "internet exploder"
i am calling it that from now on
"you can do everything you have mentioned in a browser"
So, you can run anything that needs a .exe or .bin in a browser without windows? Neat trick!
I know some people in the advertizing business, they do not use web-based multimedia software. Web-based is amateur hour.
Remember when TV was free to watch? Now people pay for satellite/cable. Remember when cell phones came with free games? Now people pay monthly fees.
Would you buy a cheap netbook with a $60/month for 3-year internet contract? If so, Google OS is right for you!
Web-based apps are just a way to drive up bandwidth needs and force people to get more expensive plans, ISPs love that. Switching to a Google OS will save people almost nothing initially (look at the small price difference between a windows vs non-windows OS, when one is offered) and will drive up long-term costs.
fail
Microsoft made themselves irrelevant to me years ago. I haven't considered them to be a viable option on the desktop or server since their performance with "Microsoft Java".
Since then I've discovered many better ways to work than the "one Microsoft Way"
Personally, I look forward to another choice in ways to work.
There's nothing about the existence of a Google OS that precludes the use of others - it doesn't have to be a religion.
I think Balmer takes himself too seriously.
To the people who think you can do everything including development, gaming, photo editing, etc. on the web, I'd like to see you try. Let me install one of those internet kiosk linux distros on your computer and let's see how you're doing after a week. You know, the ones where you won't be able to get your pictures off your digital camera, you won't be able to save any e-mail attachments anywhere, you won't be able to play a DVD or a video file when you're on a plane, etc.
Let me guess, when you said you wanted a web browser operating system, you didn't mean THAT...
Every version of Windows comes with DOS. None of the commands executed from CMD share code with the API called from Windows apps.
Then they have the recovery console to boot into when things go wrong.
Of course, all of this is stacked upon a BIOS, which people are only now beginning to properly treat as an OS.
And MS is planning to include a virtual PC install with Windows 7 for running legacy apps.
But yeah, I can totally see why Ballmer would be pointing fingers at other companies for supporting more than one OS :-)
Guess Uncle Fester forgot about Windows Mobile OS when he was doing his maths. How is this any different from Google with Android for mobile devices and Chrome for full on computers?
I have visual studio 2008, eclipse galileo, firefox, winscp, putty, excel, outlook, a custom vpn, gigsby, and pageant
I'm sorry, but chrome os is not going to cut it for me.
That wasn't a typo, Ken.
The INQ usually spells Internet Exploder on purpose. Part a clever, hidden pun and part INQslang. Same with Mozzarella Foundation, Open Sauce or Lost and Foundries; just to name a few.
If I was Mother Ballmer I'd be looking to send him back cus whoever put him together got his arse and his mouth mixed up.
Sighs... there he goes again....
Steve "Totally Clueless" Ballmer should run for U.S. Vice President. He has the same qualifications as the current occupant; diarrhea mouth.
He also doesn't understand basic math; eleventy hundred (OSes that MS sells) is much more than two.
My question is, what does he do with all those employees? He sure doesn't use them to develop quality software, that's for sure. A group of unpaid people develop higher quality software (Open Source Community).
Stevie should stick to just one OS and keep his people working at it until they get it right. Then maybe they can think about offering different versions.
So WinMobile and Windows Vista are one and the same? Ballmer needs to get his head out of his ass.
@Pozzie
I know that it's confusing and all, having multiple versions of the same OS, but I don't think you have a strong grasp on economics - based on your 'it's a rip off' comment.
Normally they would just sell it at that one, expensive price. By having multiple versions, you can not spend money on the stuff you don't need and you still get most of the OS.
I suppose that's the same thing as raising the minimum wage thinking that it's gonna make a bunch of people worth more but instead a bunch of people get fired and many more never get a job in the first place - but in reverse.
So Windows XP and Windows Mobile are the same OS then?
This from the man who gave us Bing. And Live Search.
@roo72
Keep up the snark, buddy. It really makes you look like you know what you're talking about.
You can have fun doing nothing on your useless netbook when the interwebz goes down; I'll be wherever I want, doing work. I guess you don't know what that is though, since you think a browser is a legitimate OS.
Wogan is right - it's not that the whole ChromeOS thing is useless and shouldn't happen. It's that it is not even close to something that would replace even a minimalist OS in the real world, where we don't just troll news sites all day. Most people use computers for work and reliability / redundancy is key. Having just a browser is real risky - it's gonna be one of those things that people dual boot into when they're on the go and want to flip things on / off quick.
Did he really call it 'Internet Exploder'? What a well-placed typo!
"'I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there. The last time I checked you don't need two client operating systems," Steve said.'"
Ya... righttt.. ok.. so basically that includes upgrading from Windows XP / Vista to Windows 7 ? Why do I need two operating systems? I've installed and used every single version of windows since it been out, all throughout my career. With easy to install "free" operating systems such as ubuntu and I think this new google O.S., M$ is slowly.. (maybe very slowly) finally taking notice and getting a bit "on edge".
Microsoft selling SIX different versions of Vista for desktops and notebooks (not counting the x64 versions as separate) , their server version of Windows and a separate mobile version for cell phones as well as a special embedded version.
This multiplicity of versions is a rip-off as it doesn't cost a single penny more to provide Vista Ultimate than it does to provide Home Basic. Then to release service pack 3 for Vista as a whole new generation of operating system is really gouging the customers.
Perhaps Ballmer needs to look at Apple (whose phone would never get users, according to Ballmer) and just provide two operating systems, one for desktops and notebooks and one for phones.
If they concentrate on just getting two versions working well rather than spending time figuring out which parts to leave out of the cheap versions maybe they wouldn't have to worry so much as their system would be able to stand on its merits.
@Wogan
When did you last visit the Internet Wogan, I'm guessing at least 10 years ago. With the possible exception of "development" (why would you want to do it on a netbook is a mystery anyway) you can do everything you have mentioned in a browser. There is this new, fancy search tool called "Google", quite amazing really, you can find out a lot of stuff you can do in a browser using it.
@Megan You forget that Microsoft has usage data from millions of people that opted in for the "Anonymous Usage Statistics" when they upgraded from 98/XP. If they say that more than 50% of time is spent outside the browser, they're not thumbsucking it.
Chrome OS is Google Chrome on a netbook. It's a browser, ffs - and what can't you do in a browser?
Development (Web & Desktop)
Gaming
Media (movies and music)
Photoshop/editing
Anything that needs a .exe or .bin
ChromeOS won't displace current operating systems - all it'll do is supplement it. I could use a fast, browser-focused netbook, but I sure as hell won't trade my PC in for it, and I think a lot of people feel the same way.
~ Wogan
"He said that half the time people are using their PC they are doing something that is not in the browser and Windows is the operating system for the job."
People? Which people? Developers at Microsoft using Visual Studio? Or the general masses who have an internet connection? As more applications move online, the browser will be more relevant. Fewer local applications would be needed. Chrome OS, even if it is just the Chrome browser running on a fast booting Linux, requiring zero or minimum "configuration" would be a better alternative for "people".
Isn't MS Windows Mobile a different OS than Windows onan x86?
So, thats 2 O/S right there?
Your internets are unavailable?
I'd still like to be able to the 50% out of browser rather than 100% of nothing.
Or God forbid have to use dial up to connect to my Goog docs? Heavens forbid!
"He said that half the time people are using their PC they are doing something that is not in the browser..."
10 years ago people were probably spending 90% of the time not using their browser. Spot the trend?