Google announces plans for Operating System

[/\E]

I don't know why this is such big news when Ubuntu already kicks Windows' butt. It might be somewhat hard for a low-end user to use without it being set up for them. But for power users, there is nothing better than Linux, especially a user like myself, who does a lot of web development and scripting.

I try not to use Windows for anything as much as I can. I do all of my PHP scripting in Ubuntu because PHP seems like it installs cleaner on a Linux machine than on a Windows or Mac machine. And when it comes to graphics, I hop on my Mac and use CS4.

Linux has already got Windows beat as far as performance in the workstation market and in the light clients market. I just don't know what else Linux junkies can do to push the Linux market share up.

 

[PohTayToez]

Linux has always been looked at as somewhat user-unfriendly, where as most Google products are usually quite intuitive. Google will also be able to provide a common support base for their product, where as with Linux there are so many different versions floating around it's hard to get answers to specific problems.

I'm not saying that one is better than other, just that Google has these advantages that will appeal to the average consumer.

 

[Bodaggit23]

Linux has always been looked at as somewhat user-unfriendly, where as most Google products are usually quite intuitive. Google will also be able to provide a common support base for their product, where as with Linux there are so many different versions floating around it's hard to get answers to specific problems.

I'm not saying that one is better than other, just that Google has these advantages that will appeal to the average consumer.

That's a good point.

 

[PC WizKid]

It will possibly work for retired people, who do not do much on their computers.

 

[tlarkin]

Linux has always been looked at as somewhat user-unfriendly, where as most Google products are usually quite intuitive. Google will also be able to provide a common support base for their product, where as with Linux there are so many different versions floating around it's hard to get answers to specific problems.

I'm not saying that one is better than other, just that Google has these advantages that will appeal to the average consumer.

Well, you see the Google OS, and this is from what I am totally speculating, is going to be the first OS that implements cloud computing. Which means if it were true cloud computing it would have to be online all the time.

While, cloud computing does have it's advantages and yes I think down the road when technology and connectivity become massively greater than now, almost everything you know will go to a web based solution. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. However, it will not appeal to some users. I doubt any professional will want to run their professional apps virtualized over the interwebs. However, day deploying basic apps like office, multi media players, browsers, doc readers, and so forth wouldn't be that hard and would allow for some end user benefits.

I bet that google does synchronous cloud computing which means in offline mode it will allow for work to be done and when it comes back online it will probably do a data sync.

This will not compete with anything on the market. It isn't going to be Linux that people will want on their desktops. Most likely, it won't be a version of Linux a power user who already knows Linux would even want to put on their desktops.

Last point, Linux has been around since like 1990 and it still has a plethora of problems and incompatibilities. I bet that Google probably wants to platform their OS much like Apple does and only put it on certain devices with a standard array of hardware, to accomplish that simple it just works concept.

From watching all of Google's apps now take off their beta tags this is just my speculation.

 

[PohTayToez]

While, cloud computing does have it's advantages and yes I think down the road when technology and connectivity become massively greater than now, almost everything you know will go to a web based solution. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. However, it will not appeal to some users. I doubt any professional will want to run their professional apps virtualized over the interwebs. However, day deploying basic apps like office, multi media players, browsers, doc readers, and so forth wouldn't be that hard and would allow for some end user benefits.


I bet that google does synchronous cloud computing which means in offline mode it will allow for work to be done and when it comes back online it will probably do a data sync.

I think that's pretty much a given. I imagine we'll see some some sort of Goggle Docs that can be used offline, and then when it goes online it uploads any new changes you have made. Picasa already does that for pictures.

This will not compete with anything on the market. It isn't going to be Linux that people will want on their desktops. Most likely, it won't be a version of Linux a power user who already knows Linux would even want to put on their desktops.

Again, without saying. This isn't an OS targeted at desktops.

Last point, Linux has been around since like 1990 and it still has a plethora of problems and incompatibilities. I bet that Google probably wants to platform their OS much like Apple does and only put it on certain devices with a standard array of hardware, to accomplish that simple it just works concept.

This, however, I doubt. I'm sure they'll cooperate with various manufacturers to develop netbooks meant for Google OS, but it definitely won't be limited to that. They're going to want to make it as widely available as possible, like any other Google product, which is the point of making it open source. I think that Android is evidence of this, where there are a few phones that are made around it, but it is designed so that it can be customized to work with nearly any mobile device. There are already versions that have been used on GPSs and netbooks.

 

[tlarkin]

This, however, I doubt. I'm sure they'll cooperate with various manufacturers to develop netbooks meant for Google OS, but it definitely won't be limited to that. They're going to want to make it as widely available as possible, like any other Google product, which is the point of making it open source. I think that Android is evidence of this, where there are a few phones that are made around it, but it is designed so that it can be customized to work with nearly any mobile device. There are already versions that have been used on GPSs and netbooks.

I bet that is how it goes at first. Remember they are partnering up with companies. They probably will have a small ring of partners that build their systems, specified for their usage.

Probably not in the strict sense as Apple, but along the same business model. Then again, Andriod is free to everyone and no one really wants it, so it is not that widely adopted as say Windows Mobile, Palm OS, or any one of the other big ones out there.

 

[PohTayToez]

I bet that is how it goes at first. Remember they are partnering up with companies. They probably will have a small ring of partners that build their systems, specified for their usage.

Well, it's going open source before the end of the year, so I'm betting that that happens before manufactures start making netbooks with Google OS included.

Probably not in the strict sense as Apple, but along the same business model. Then again, Andriod is free to everyone and no one really wants it, so it is not that widely adopted as say Windows Mobile, Palm OS, or any one of the other big ones out there.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about in this instance. Android is still new, and it makes sense that most phone manufactures didn't want tot take the risk of being the first to use it. However, now with the success of the G1, there are several major manufactures looking to adopt it. Samsung and LG (#2 and #3 in mobile phones), both have announced Android phones for release later this year, and Acer will be releasing a an Aspire One with Android.

 

[tlarkin]

Still, there is no waiting list for people to jump all over Android, three devices is hardly anything. Plus most cell phone OSes run some sort of Linux anyway which is already tried and tested.

We will just have to wait and see. I heard the hype out the G1 was the iPhone killer and it hasn't sold nearly enough as the iPhone or the Blackberry to even be a contender just yet.

 

[PohTayToez]

Still, there is no waiting list for people to jump all over Android, three devices is hardly anything. Plus most cell phone OSes run some sort of Linux anyway which is already tried and tested.

Companies with a vested interest in Android:

• Sprint Nextel
• T-Mobile
• Vodafone
• eBay
• Broadcom
• Intel
• Nvidia
• Qualcomm
• Synaptics
• Texas Instruments
• ARM
• Atheros
• EMP
• Sony Ericsson
• Toshiba
• Acer

And, propietary mobile OS's aside, I believe Symbian is the most widely distributed mobile OS, and it is not Linux based.

 

[tlarkin]

Companies with a vested interest in Android:

• Sprint Nextel
• T-Mobile
• Vodafone
• eBay
• Broadcom
• Intel
• Nvidia
• Qualcomm
• Synaptics
• Texas Instruments
• ARM
• Atheros
• EMP
• Sony Ericsson
• Toshiba
• Acer

And, propietary mobile OS's aside, I believe Symbian is the most widely distributed mobile OS, and it is not Linux based.

I am not saying it is a flop, I am saying it sure was hyped up sooooo much and I don't see what they said there was going to be just yet. The greatest thing about Android is that it has endless funds via Google, so it is not likely to disappear only get better.

I am just trying to say it hasn't lived up to the hype yet.

You should see the list of companies that have a vested interest in EFI technology, which still hasn't caught on yet and there is no good reason not too. Vested interests don't mean jack until you start seeing products on the shelf.

Remember reading about XED technology? It had vested interests from other companies as well, never saw the light of day.

I will believe it when I see it, is what I am getting at.

I don't think that Chrome OS will live up to the hype either, and it will take years for it to catch on. Here is what I don't get either. Why announce your OS on some lame half ass written blog and not at least give a screen shot or a demo video?

If they can't produce that, why even announce it? I am sure I will download it and play with it, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[PohTayToez]

That's how Google does things, which is why I'm confused as to how you can even compare their business model to Apples. Google has never made a huge deal out of anything they have released. They just throw out a few details a couple months before release, and let any "hype" grow by word of mouth.

And as for using technologies that DID flop, or haven't taken off yet as examples, I fail to see the connection. You're talking about technologies that were never implemented, but Android is clearly getting off the ground. Last year there was one Android phone, and this year we're looking at 5-10, and possibly that many more netbooks.

When you say that it didn't live up to the hype, I have to wonder exactly what you were expecting? As far as I can see, Android lived up to every expectation performance wise, and now all that is left is for it to gain popularity.

Finally, as more a side note, call any phone an "iPhone killer" is ridiculous, just as it would be to call any laptop a "Macbook Killer". Apple consumers are about as loyal as they come, and any company looking to take any of their market share would be insane to think to do that with a single product.

 

[tlarkin]

That's how Google does things, which is why I'm confused as to how you can even compare their business model to Apples. Google has never made a huge deal out of anything they have released. They just throw out a few details a couple months before release, and let any "hype" grow by word of mouth.

Um that is Apple's exact advertising model. Leak one bit of info and let the rumors build....

And as for using technologies that DID flop, or haven't taken off yet as examples, I fail to see the connection. You're talking about technologies that were never implemented, but Android is clearly getting off the ground. Last year there was one Android phone, and this year we're looking at 5-10, and possibly that many more netbooks.

EFI has been implemented by several major companies, just not Microsoft.

When you say that it didn't live up to the hype, I have to wonder exactly what you were expecting? As far as I can see, Android lived up to every expectation performance wise, and now all that is left is for it to gain popularity.

Well, after my friend got one after reading up on all the hype I was considering getting one. Since I have T-Mobile to begin with (I jail broke my 1st gen iPhone) and I tested his out. We even traded phones for nearly a full day because he wanted to test out the iPhone. I wasn't impressed that much, and it doesn't do anything the iPhone can't and the interface is not as cool. Multi-touch does so much to a phone.

Finally, as more a side note, call any phone an "iPhone killer" is ridiculous, just as it would be to call any laptop a "Macbook Killer". Apple consumers are about as loyal as they come, and any company looking to take any of their market share would be insane to think to do that with a single product.

Yes but there are now tons of switchers due to iPods and iPhones that are impressed with Apple's hand helds. Think if there was an iPhone killer, it would kill that percentage of switching maybe. Plus Apple has gone from a 3% market share to a near 10$ market share in the last 7 years, which is pretty insane amount of growth.

This OS will mainly be for netbooks and internet like devices, so I bet it is optimized for such things.