f13.net

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124702911173210237.html

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

Why is this a branch of Chrome and not Android?

Because this way they generate a whole bunch of pre-emptive 'Google defeats Microsoft' headlines.

Well the window manager is kinda chrome but they haven't said what they are using for the display yet (custom inhouse rendering or x.org), or filesystem. The kernel is linux so I don't see this whole "we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS ". Nor do I see it as real competition to Windows as all the media is saying. There's no mention of any windows compatibility(binaries/active directory/.net/mono) and the ad revenue stream is pretty much a no go for me.

But honestly if they have their shit together it might acually help the linux presence. Linux is so disjointed that for any progress there's different forks or codebases of the same application (eg: gtk/qt/compiz/beryl/x.org/xfree), which ends up slowing down progress while dev's fight it out. Atleast now there's one big company with money behind it to say "no.. fsck you this is what you get".

Side note, so will Mozilla foundation be up in arms over Google now?  :why_so_serious:

Microsoft had better lower the price of windows pretty quick. What they are currently charge borders on ridiculous. Google OS is most likely going to be free... So I don't see Microsoft being able to get away with any more than $50 per seat.

Google isn't releasing a Windows alternative right away. I don't think I'd be willing to replace my Windows with an OS that is currently slated to be just for netbooks and geared towards surfing the net faster.

Yes... But the majority of people buying computers today are buying them for the sole purpose of surfing the net. Those same people want cheap laptops. So you take Google OS + Google Apps and put it on a netbook, and you now have a device that sells for $200 and does everything most computer users want. So the only reason anyone would buy windows at that point would be to play 3D games.

People are also prone to buying more than they need under the premise that you don't want to be caught without the necessary software/hardware. I'm just saying, MS won't lower their prices over this.

Familiarity also counts, otherwise the Linux flavor netbooks would probably be selling better.  MSi and Ubuntu have both (http://gizmodo.com/5058953/linux-netbooks-are-returned-4x-more-than-win-xp-versions-says-msi) confirmed (http://blog.laptopmag.com/ubuntu-confirms-linux-netbook-returns-higher-than-anticpated) that Linux-based Netbooks get returned a lot mroe than XP-based ones.



The average consumer doesn't care.  By God, it better look like Windows.

I will make the bet that they are writing a complete GUI and window manager for Linux and not using X11 at all. So it won't be an OS but a GUI. The OS part of Linux is fine for both consumers and lightweight devices. X11 is not. They say right there that they aim for you to be using the web in a few seconds from turning the machine on. So that's certainly not X11 then.

I dunno, you can 'browse the web in minutes' with Ubuntu live CD, so I don't think that would be the determining factor. That said, OS X is essentially a *nix with a polished GUI and that has done well. Does the graphics rendering on OS X have any roots in X11?

I can't think of a modern ANYTHING where you can't "browse the web in minutes."

Guys! This OS that hasn't been created yet and about which we know nothing about is a Windows Killer!

Quick, call McQuaid for a presser!

OS are not really about UIs.  Almost all of the effort and difficulty goes into supporting\interfacing with the 3rd party hardware.  Apple solves this by resticting the hardware to their own and charging\profiting for this.  If Googles goes into the hardware business they could do something in a few years.  If they want to run on the wide range of PC hardware it will be more then a few years as thousands of drivers are needed.  Advertiser turned driver writer is challenge that will provide stories for years.

They're talking about seconds, not minutes. OS X uses a compositing engine called Quartz upon which is built a new interface called Aqua. You can run X11 on Mac OS X, but the default GUI doesn't use it.


That's nonsense. A modern "OS" as is leveled at the consumer (as in this case) consists of a package of software that includes kernel, device drivers, system applications, network stacks, user interfaces and typically some 'essential' user applications. Device drivers are actually trivial. They may involve specialist and somewhat arcane programming knowledge to implement, but they're much easier to develop than most of the user-facing interface code and consequently have a shorter development cycle.

I'm 100% positive Microsoft is not bothered by this news in the slightest.

I'm 100% sure your wrong.

Its not going to have a big effect on them for awhile, but its just a stepping stone.  If they can bring out a net book OS that does everything everybody does on notebooks anyways, for free (instead of paying for all of Microsoft's crap) its going to start hurting revenue.  And then they can work further on releasing a robust desktop OS.

This isn't about what damage is going to be done to them in 2 years, but what the implication is 6-7 years from now.  Microsoft will see that and will start taking steps to address it.

The real trick will be getting manufacturers to install it on new machines, or this wont matter. Its the only reason the world uses IE, and quite possibly windows at large.


Windows very name was because of its UI. There was no UI before.

"Microsoft first began development of the Interface Manager (subsequently renamed Microsoft Windows) in September 1981."

But Linux is TERRIBLE in the hands of the inexperienced. I can't think of a single Linux distro I could install on my mothers computer and go home unworried that she would just be calling me back in 20min. In fact, I doubt I'd bet out of the house before she wanted windows back.

But she knows google. If they make it user friendly enough (and lets admit that's what google is best at) then they may very well have something. I'm not saying it's going to kill windows... I'm saying it might, if done correctly, cost Microsoft a lot of market share.

Do you mean GUI?  An OS without a UI better be an AI, or it's pretty useless.

I don't see how slapping your brand on top of a linux distro can be called an OS. 

G$$gle is the new M$FT in more ways than one. 

OS X is just a GUI slapped on BSD.

I fail to see the difference.


Saying things like that makes me want to kick you in the teeth.

What do you think they've been doing for the last 6 years?

The XBox line - an Internet enabled entertainment box for your living room.
Changing the licensing on all their desktop apps to essentially make them subscription apps as opposed to one-off purchases.
Windows for Mobile devices.

Windows has been maneuvering themselves away from the desktop and onto network apps for years. They've successfully fended off every other version of Linux out there for the business market. When OS X is the most successful *nix variant, and the best they can do with OS X is what 3-4% market share? You really think Microsoft gives two shits about a Googly Linux for Netbooks?

The Aqua GUI and Quartz compositor run on the Mach-like XNU, which the OpenStep API and shell environment also run on, and they borrow heavily from the BSD design. The GUI doesn't run on BSD.

/pedant

However it does demonstrate that most of what is wrong with putting Unix in untrained hands has to do with its traditional interfaces and not the kernel or libraries. Obvious enough to techies, but Apple's implementation probably sold the idea to more than a few senior managers.

With the netbook marketshare growing so fast you bet their bippy they're scared. A device manufacturer can have one of the biggest tech names in the industry behind them and they have to pay next to nothing for the OS. That is going to allow them to compete nicely against the Win7 netbooks that have a 75-100 OS cost built-in to the price.

You ask Joe Schmoe "You want Ubuntu on your netbook?" and they are going to look at you like you have a communicable disease. You say "You want Google Chrome on that?" and I suspect you will get a much better response.

Google also has the money to sweeten the pot for device developers. Ubuntu, not so much.

If they're building a new window system, that means a whole other slew of other shit for the interface.. So that makes it significantly different than other Linux distributions as well. I think this would make it more like OSX than typical Linux flavors. Bypassing X, GTK, and other typical gui technologies in the open source world. These things shape the linux world more than the kernel actually!


That all that said, I don't really give a shit about netbooks.

Surfing the net faster? Really? Jumping from 56k to cable is surfing the net faster, changing your OS? I doubt it.

IMO if Microsoft is scared of something Google is doing, it is Google Wave, not this. Google Wave has serious potential to eat a bunch of Exchange's market share within a few years. This netbooks-only-for-now OS stuff is farther down the road and who knows if netbooks as we know them will even be in the picture by the time it becomes a real battle?

Chrome loads pages faster than other browsers (although FF3.5 is close to it on benchmarks), that's likely what they're talking about.

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with a webpage loading too slow that wasn't the fault of the server. Its not like my OS is making my firefox chug down to a craw when I try to load an 'image intensive' website.

When you're dealing with notebooks and the like where processing power is more sparse and you've got less RAM then every little helps and indeed can be more noticeable.

The main thing with Chrome (the browser) is that each tab is its own process which speeds up web apps significantly and also means that starting up Bejewelled won't make your other pages load more slowly while the browser deals with that. Additionally if something crashes, it only brings one tab down and not the whole browser.

I have been saying to my friends that I think the OS is going to basically become a browser, and everything is going to be done in a cloud. This seems like the first step towards that.

Wait... Didn't Bill Gates say that too? Back in the day when the default wallpaper was a cloud?  :why_so_serious:

No, actually, Gates wrote in his 1995 book how the internet was just a passing fad, and how CD-ROM was the future of computing…

See, yeah, I'm behind the times then. Everything I know I learned from Cinemania and Encarta CD-ROM's.  :grin:

Err, didn't that come true?

truth hurts.   They're a business who happen to have done big things with open source. 

I meant how you typed it. Don't do that. Ever.

yeah that was stupid.   Point taken.

People have been saying this since the days of Netscape. This is the reason why Microsoft worked so hard to crush Netscape, the company. Unfortunately for Microsoft Google came along and in turn that gave the Mozilla Foundation a revenue stream that MS couldn't affect, as the Foundation gets a ton of money from Google every year for making Google the default search engine and default home page of Firefox.

And now we're in the midst of a browser war the likes we've never seen before and Microsoft is rapidly losing market share to the IE-competitors. Microsoft is getting so desperate they are opting for "scorched earth" tactics rather than straight up competing. In the EU when they told Microsoft that IE can no longer be the default and only browser in Windows Microsoft's rebuttal was to threaten to not ship *any* browser with Windows in the EU rather than to allow users the ability to choose a browser during the Windows install.

Gates' book "The Road Ahead" totally missed the Internet. He was thinking about set top boxes and other crap like that. To his credit, though, once he realized he was seriously mistaken, he was able to rapidly turn Microsoft and embrace the Internet and went on to crush the initial upstarts like Netscape. The book also got quickly revised to include the Internet stuff in it so if you buy a copy now it's harder to tell just how wrong he actually was back then.

I think there will be an OS component. All that talk about security sounds to me like they will be writing something akin to a "hypervisor" or some other sort of layer on top of the Linux kernel that the apps will run on top of.

We've been through this before. Wake us up when you can run a browser on an (unhacked) Xbox.

It might be, I was thinking a true hypervisor or emulation but then realized it cannot be done with the current crop of intel n series atom(aka most netbooks).

For reference a z530 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35463) vs n270 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36331).

Google has hired developers to just work on Firefox.

I'm not really sure this is the slippery slope to a desktop OS like some pundits are claiming.  Seems less ambitious.  Will be interesting to see what Microsoft does and if they have a plan other than keeping XP around.



Hi Scott McNealy.

You don't actually need a hypervisor to build a more secure environment.

Android, for example, uses the existing unix/linux process and permission model very effectively to compartmentalize apps -- apps are all assigned their own UIDs on install, cannot mess with each other, etc.

If you're not looking to just replicate desktop linux as it exists today, the kernel gives you a *ton* of tools to implement security policy that's much richer than typical on the desktop.

And they could shift strategy and recover OK because by the mid 90's they owned the business desktop and succeeded in placing a toll booth upon every office worker desk in the developed world.

Microsoft is so ubiquitous, few can even contemplate a Microsoft-less existence, yet in 1990, it was far from a forgone conclusion, where in the office I worked, we handed documents off to secretaries for typing or edited them on IBM/Burroughs mainframe terminals. In the early 90s, OS 2 flourished in some corporate realms. But in just a few years, Windows + MS Word/Office captured every worker's desktop, while OS 2 would whither away into dusty bits and Apple was still engaged in a quest for a real modern OS.

 :popcorn:

This is gonna be fun to watch next summer...

It'll be interesting to see if our friends in Cupertino decide to build something to fill the gap between iphone/ipod and macbook. 

This...This is huge. The windows experience is so lacking. So many intrusions spyware Trojans. Any thing different a 10% more secure could be huge.

We've reached a sweet spot in CPU power where a "palm-top" or smartphone can do just about everything we generally use a PC for (web-surfing, word-processing, etc.) with cycles to spare while driving a display as big as is meaningful (up to HDTV levels of resolution).  There's not much incentive to drive the next round of upgrades, given that even DX10 couldn't drive gamers to Vista.  Any of you really feel a driving need to upgrade to Windows 7, or are you like me, making sure you've got multiple copies, both legit and cracked, of the install images for various versions of XP and are hoarding all your key codes?  My only Vista machine is a Tablet/Notebook hybrid that doesn't have touchscreen drivers for any other OS.

So there's definitely a window for somebody to come in with a light and lean OS layer that uses HTML to drive the interface.  And Google certainly seems to be aiming at that.

--Dave

I don't see a need to get rid of the PC. Smartphones are cool too. I just don't see the need for some bridge between the two, like the netbooks. I can have all the mobility with a phone, and work with robust apps/files with a PC. I'm sure plenty of people find a use for netbooks though... just not me.

I've actually upgraded to Windows 7 (skipping over vista entirely) when I just built my brand new computer, and I love it.  Never going to let XP touch my system again (and I was a big fan of XP).

shhh.... Never you mind what your friends in Cupertino are doing...

:popcorn:

So far, they've dismissed the idea. Doesn't really match their previous patterns anyways.. They can barely get a cheap sub-1k machine out the door. Besides that, the iPhone is already very functional as it is.

edit: ok, scratch that. if jobs goes away, anything is fair game.

 :drill:

The 99$ computer.

How do you "know" this? Given that Apple have come to manufacturing agreements with three LCD makers to provide a shitton of displays that are too large for an iPhone and too small for a MacBook, you're almost certainly wrong.

Actually, you're making the argument FOR googlix. Since the main barrier to OSX-flavored *nix is Apple hardware cost/rigidity.

If I could have OSX on a cheap netbook? Oh fuck yes. While an Apple-made iNetbook would sell well, if they could position its price point alongside a googlix or windows netbook, I'd buy it in a heartbeat and MS would shit themselves.

You can already do that with some netbooks. All you need to do is flash the bios with a special signature and that will allow OS X installation.

Here's a handy chart:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/17/osx-netbook-compatib.html

I'm still failing to see why MS will shit themselves over netbooks. I'd imagine the profit to them for the OS installed on them, if there is one, is marginal.

See avatard.

The 3-4% is 2004-2005 numbers. More like 8-10% these days.

I know games are predominately MS realm, but from my analytics from both personal and professional/business/non-profit sites, Macs are ~10% on even the most Win-centric user frequented sites (i.e, the sites where in past years, Mac users were 2-3%). On sites like Tumblr, Mac users ~20% or more…

Having said that, XP has really established itself on netbooks from what I've read… …for Google to be successful with NetBook strategy, they've got to achieve what Ubuntu has failed (though, to be fair, not really in their "charter") — an appealing suite of programs to use (and they can be browser based) packaged together — browsing, email, video, photos + video.

OTOH, I'm in the camp that doesn't see the need for a netbook. They're way too underpowered for serious tasks (for me, coding, some photo editing, audio editing) and I have an iPhone which really is a nifty web OS device in its own right + suitable for tapping out messages and emails (especially now that I have copy + paste, /hallelujah). I suspect all the "smart" phones will continue to get smarter, and crowd out potential netbook market demand.

Netbooks seem to be the wet dream of the Silicion Valley internet millionaire / social networking traveling wannabe guru set.

Netbooks are very popular with quite a number professionals I know, and are HUGE in college (where budgets are tighter).  Again, the point is that they can do all the things 90% of the population uses computers for, but for cheaper.  A Google OS that packages in all the apps they could ever want for almost no cost?  Even bigger price savings.

This board isn't the target demographic for netbooks.  We all tend to be power users.  From my experience working at the computer lab in my university, and helping out friends/family with their PC's, Netbooks are probably overpowered for what the vast majority of people use PC's for ;).

Still, its not going to be that huge of a market even if it continues to expand, so it wont hurt MS too badly.  Again though, this is an alarming trend for MS, and if Google continues to build up what they do with chrome and Android, it could lead to some serious competition down the road.  Google is the only company with the competence, money, and clout to eventually make an OS that can compete with windows (Apple doesn't count unless they finally make OSX work on hardware that everybody in the world actually uses).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the big bottleneck the availability/compatibility of MS Office, rather than the OS? Sure, you can browse the web in seconds, but can you run the needed macros in your spreadsheet (can't do that in MS Office for Mac, for example) and have your professor read your .doc term paper with the right formatting if its performed in Open Office, etc?

I realise that its all tied together, but office productivity software seems to be the where MS has us all by the throat.

Microsoft has been quietly and not so quietly been working on that for years, ever since they integrated IE into the Windows interface and the changes in the desktop app licensing structure they've made over the years. They'd be farther along if 1) the anitrust suits hadn't slowed them down and made them sort of decouple IE from the OS, and 2) their IE programmers didn't suck such copious amounts of cock.

Why the fuck would Microsoft want to do that? They want CONTROL of what apps you run on their boxes. Shit, if they could keep XP from running other word processors or other web browsers, they would.

3.) Building Gazelle.  I think, despite what their marketing department claim, the company knows IE is a piece of trash.  Just like they did with XP and Vista, they are trying to make a clean break, I'd wager.

The cost of netbooks is low enough that the cost to install a msft OS becomes a significant percentage of the bill of materials.  Thus you have all these netbook vendors looking at linux solutions, etc, to try to be more competitive price-wise.

If you believe that netbooks are going to eclipse PCs, microsoft should probably worry.  If not, then maybe not so much worry. 

Because I skimmed a few articles of this sort last month.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090519/apple-rim-no-netbooks/ (http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090519/apple-rim-no-netbooks/)

I see he's never used an Apple keyboard before.

The new chicle keyboards on the Macbooks are anything but cramped. I totally agree the old Apple keyboards were ass, but the new ones are really lovely. The keyboard on the 17" Macbook was actually a bit too spacious for my liking.

I JUST used one like 10 minutes ago at Fry's.

As someone who uses a Model M 10 hours a day, I can confidently say that Apple keyboards are still cramped chicklet ass. Schild no likey gooey shallow keys, no matter how much sleek brushed aluminum is around them.

I can see how if you like the big daddy Model M you wouldn't be a big fan. Compared to other laptop keyboards and the crappy keyboards that used to ship with Mac Pros, they are awesome.

I still swear by these keyboards (http://www.pcimicro.com/.sc/ms/dd/Keyboard%20%5E2F%20Mouse--Generic%20Keyboard/7537/Generic%20Keyboard%20KB-7903).  I bought one for $25 in 1996, and have used it with every computer I've owned since (I'm screwed if the PS/2 keyboard port ever goes away the way it has on some mobos for mice).  I can *use* a standard keyboard, or even a notebook/netbook chiclet keyboard, but not for hours on end without getting cramps in my wrists.

--Dave

I might have used one of those model-m's back in the day, I don't know. My real complaint about current Macs (desktops at least..) is the fucking mouse. You literally can't get any worse. If anything, because of the scroll wheel. It doesn't stay clean... nor are they easy to reassemble if you try to clean them.

I hate the "Mighty Mouse" with the fire of a thousand suns. I'm not sure what it is about Apple and mice; they are incapable of making a usable one. If nothing else, the fact you can't hold down the left and right mouse buttons at the same time is just maddening. I makes Maya really unpleasant to use.

You realize that you can always just use a PS2/USB converter to connect it to anything you want, right?   :wink:

I've been using what ever Microsoft's current ergonomic keyboard is for several years now and love it.  I really have a hard time going back to anything that isn't ergonomically shaped now.

I laughed when we got in the chiclet keyboard, but I'm a convert. It's fucking awesome and finally broke me of my love of the old IBM style. I'm shocked at myself.

I haven't worked with IE as a developer since IE 6 (*shudder*).  As a regular user, IE 8 is impressive and by no means a piece of trash.

(http://forums.f13.net/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=4563;type=avatar)

"A fully functional computer for under $400? ...How is that possible? Nah, it isn't. It must suck. Buy our overpriced shit folks."

Goddamn I wish Apple would go out of business.

Apple should make a mini-mac-mini just for iTunes and call it the iMini.

It would sell fucking gangbusters. Maybe even put a flip up LCD on it and some sleek tiny metal ball with a button to use as a mouse. An all in one unit.

Isn't that pretty much an iTV?

I tend agree with Cook. I looked to get a netbook but realized by iPhone does everything a netbook can, or at least everything I need a netbook to do. I do see there being a need for them, but I think a real laptop is a better value proposition for most people. I wouldn't want to manage my photo library on an iPhone any more than I would want to do so on a netbook.

Not even a little.

K. So is it an iPod then? What does it do that makes it different? An iPod touch can do pretty much anything a Mac Mini with just iTunes could do.

I meant for syncing and storage of a library larger than 32GB but without all the other fiddly unnecessary bits. I suppose they could just attach a screen to a mac mini so you could bring it with you on vacation easily.

Basically, a limited functionality netbook built for one express purpose, media and app downloading/transfer.

So an iPod Touch with a big ass hard drive.

With DVI out as an option for semi-permanent home placement that has the same GUI as iTunes when hooked up to a monitor, sure.

IE8 is a bloated, overprotective piece of shit with a UI that was designed by a half-blind Mr. Magoo fuckhead with a hardon for the iPeen.

Firefox 3.5
Chrome
Safari

3 good reasons not to use IE8.  I have it installed and I will occasionally use it to see if the suck has been diminished.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/

No LCD, though.

Edit: NM, schild wants a bigger HD.

Apple TV doesn't have ALL the functionality of iTunes. It is, in fact, altogether half-assed.

What iTunes functionality is it missing that you need?

I don't know what's unclear about this.

I want the full app with full iphone/ipod connectivity. Apple TV has no meaningful connectivity at all. Basically I want an even cheaper Mac Mini where the OS is basically iTunes and nothing else. Not some stripped down media portal like Apple TV and not some full blown, yet technologically gimped thing like a Mac Mini. Something built from the ground up as iTunes.

Though, honestly, this tangent has gone on far too long as it's pure wankery and I know there isn't an available solution for such a thing.

Yeah, but the Google OS doesn't come out for another year, so we have to have something to talk about until then.

They have no reason to panic regardless.  It's not like they're incapable of gutting their OS until it's effectively only good for internet browsing and media apps and then selling CD's at a loss just to fucking spite Google and maintain their brand identity enough that Google cannot threaten them in other ventures.

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79655
What do you think Gazelle is?

By the way, transforming your web browser into an OS is more than just tube surfing.  You also need to be able to run applications that were developed native, hence Google's Native Client.

There are rumors that on Monday, Microsoft is going to announce an online version of Office to compete with Google Docs.

You mean http://workspace.officelive.com/en-us/office-web-applications

Time travel! (http://www.thinkgos.com/index.html)

And creating a custom GUI shell for Linux isn't as difficult as it seems especially if your own app is a browser. XP clone (http://www.xpde.com/) attempt from 5 years ago. I submitted code for Notepad and Calc to it :why_so_serious:.

But if it's only good for internet browsing, why would anyone want to pay anything for it if there's a perfectly good free internet browsing solution (especially if the free internet browsing solution is a better experience).

Windows is a threat to the non-windows netbooks because people want to run their existing programs.  See: consumer frustration about linux alternatives and returns due to this.  If they have no need to run windows software and are happy with just a browsing and media player experience, there's no advantage to having windows.

Which would be nice, but you really can't rely on the consumer to know what they need outside of what they're already using at work. Price will help, but see the consumer confusion affecting return rates from page 1. People don't know what they don't need until you remind them two years later that they haven't used it. Counter that with the reality that during that two year period they probably needed it once enough to cause the omgwhatdidibuy concern.

I see netbooks in the same way I see non-smartphone mobile phones, and some of the crappy smartphones as well: promise of a potential specific end user experience that becomes disappointing quickly enough to instill buyer remorse. The difference is the (current) lack of the two year commitment. Given that it's not Google trying to sell these netbooks, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of those commitments (free netbook with broadband card to our service for two years!!)

Someone's gotta make the money in their vertical.

The margins on $200 netbooks have got to be pretty damn thin, especially given how *everyone*'s making 'em now.  My theory (based on browsing some dell, hp, etc netbook online sales sites) is the current model is to try to make it up in upgrades (memory, disk, bundled software, etc).

The margins are probably the same as notebooks. It's the bottom line which would be different. The components are different but their ammortization is probably similar. For example, various members of the ARM family are used in a lot of different devices, while Intel/AMD processors are used in a lot of different laptops. No idea what the numbers are.

In general, I see netbooks having much more potential in emerging countries where endusers aren't conditioned by MS dominated offices. And maybe the college-bound crowd depending on what the professors and curriculum demand (I have no idea. I went to college with a Mac SE and did most of whatever "online" work on VAX dumb terminals :-) ).

But as viable replacements for today's professionals that don't really "go home" as much as telecommute without calling it that, I doubt it.

No idea if the emerging markets and young 20-somethings are a big enough business. It's not like Google is making some really risky bet here.

Microsoft should have done this earlier... But I guess that's be expected (always second in line in the game).

Anyways, I'm a Mac user, but I've been playing with Windows again.. All of the Live stuff is pretty nice, I think. There isn't much lacking now with Office in the mix. Just one more thing to keep people there instead of there. Even "Bing" isn't a bad alternative to Google. It'll be interesting to see if it all picks up. A lot of their success hedges on whether they have bad press or not (like with Vista), but even so, people use their shit either way.

Windows 7 is also really well done (I use the RC).  The bad press with Vista that allows Apple to take away some market share and the rise of Google as the dominant company on the Internet have been good things, as they both provide actual competition to Microsoft, which, in turn has had a part in the improvement of the company's products.  I just hope Google and Apple keep the pressure on.

It's too bad that Apple's strong vendor tie-in philosophy keeps them from playing the web app game much. Mobile Me is stupid and expensive and only good for Macs and iPhones, iApps aren't actually "i" Apps.. Hell, even their Default Start Page is just some bullshit Product site.. Like I give a fuck reading about a computer I already have - or other "success stories" of people who have the computer I have. Fuck off.

They don't even try to have a customized Yahoo or Google page or whatnot, let alone their own type of portal. I like the OS and hardware a lot, but it's really about the whole package.. and I don't think they're up with the times, at least when it comes to the web. And the sad thing is, they have the branding to pull it off. But they won't. They'll end up staying where they've always been.. In the realm of niche-y pro apps/and design.

I haven't messed with Windows 7, but that's all I hear... that's a big improvement. And like I said, if Microsoft still has a zillionfuckton of users even with bad press, they're pretty much unstoppable when they have good press.

Sorta agree. But I still think the old question applies: how many people choose their OS vs choose the hardware upon which they happen to get an OS?

Vista had problems for the end user, but it only reached epic proportions of fail when the hardware vendors couldn't fall in lockstep anymore. They probably got tired of the hours spent by their sales force convincing retail buyers that Vista wasn't all that bad, so don't worry just do business as usual. And it's not like W7 is a completely rebuilt-from-ground-up OS either.

Google and Apple rising is a great thing. Both are more popular brands and position themselves as more enduser focused. As much as Apple offers a complete end-to-end user experiences, Windows is still the default most people think of when you say "computer". The best chance of that changing is an entire new (ish) market ignoring it.