Gates Downplays Chrome OS

[Meecrob]

Gates needs to worry about his own OS...

Just today, the Autotrader rep for my dad's carlot came in and told us that Autotrader.com is backtracking... What do I mean by this? They are switching all of their computers/laptops back to XP from Vista. This isn't some article I'm reading on the internet, this is first hand real life.

What's more, this same trend is starting to become prevalent with Windows 7... Business is looking away from Microsoft's new releases.

yeah, BUT alot of why many companies go back to XP is due to them not knowing enough about windows in the first place.

You can make vista look and feel like XP if you want, SO that cuts the learning curve down, the other main issue is the fact alot of companies dont update to current service packs, I saw a bank wipe their new vista laptops due 100% to the fact that they had vista pre-sp1 issues, had they updated to sp1/sp2 they wouldnt have had the issues they where running into(one of the issues was that adobe reader wouldnt work properly, and adobe+ms patches fixed that long ago)

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

yeah, BUT alot of why many companies go back to XP is due to them not knowing enough about windows in the first place.

.... And stuff just straight up not working in vista.

Thats why we never switched... It's a full time job supporting Windows XP as it is.

 

[Meecrob]

i havent found many apps that just wont work in vista, i have found a few, but they where mostly OLD ASS apps I kept around and was just to lazy to replace with newer apps.

you do gotta admit, even the "IT" guys at alot of large companies dont really know their way around windows other then the limited stuff they deal with day to day, I tend to try and learn all i can about getting stuff working/managing stuff in any new windows version, I may HATE that version(vista pre-sp1) but I still do at least the minimum work needed to know how to get around most common bugs.

I have friends/acquaintances that work in IT locally, and alot of them have only used vista when they have been FORCED to, They badmouth it constantly despite the fact that when you question them they clearly have NO experience dealing with it themselves.

the funny part is that they all LOVE XP now, despite the fact that they hated it for years due to little bugs XP has that SHOULDN'T BE THERE(it rotts over time for example)

they complained about SP1 breaking things, and SP2, I spent weeks listening to them complain how it broke this and that(it broke ALOT of wireless drivers, causing them to have to update each laptop manually to newer drivers)

Alot of companies around here still use windows 2000, cant really blame them, it works, its stable and reliable and will run pretty much everything the company would want to toss at it(other then maby office 2007)

Enlarge the complaints/attacks against Vista are now based on old information(pre sp1/2) and those that aren't enlarge are due to people not knowing the tricks needed to get around some minor quirks with various software.

some common quirks.

App wont show text/images in places where it should. FIX: disable visual themes in compatibility settings, also may need to disable desktop composition (same place) this is due to the way areo works, You can just disable theme's and set everything to classic windows and that will avoid alot of problems with older apps.

App install gives an error about not being able to reg a file or the like: easy fix, rclick the installer, run as administrator.

App wont/cant do what its ment to do, but gives no error message or the error message makes no sense, Try the same rout as above, run the app as administrator, THIS IS VERY COMMON, cant tell you how many times I myself have run into this with older apps, and even some website based programs(run the browser as administrator)

Those are the most common, there are more of course, but enlarge as long as the app isn't tied to IE5 or 6 you shouldn't run into any critical problems.

One tip I have for anybody dealing with vista having bugs that make no bloody sence, start>run>cmd chkdsk /f to your boot drive and apps drive, let it do the check on restart, I cant tell you how many times i have recovered a system that seemed borked beyond all logical sence by simply running a full chkdsk, Hell a few weeks ago my buddys netbook couldn't install drivers for any usb drives(mass storage controller drvices) kept saying windows didnt have a driver for them, well I was close to wiping it, but decided to run a chkdsk on it, it found 2 errors, fixed them, and BAM everything worked again(this can happen on XP as well, its just not as common)

What makes me laugh is when I see people buying win7 thinking it will fix all the problems they hear about with Vista, when win7 isnt really that different from vista at the core, its been tweaked and the gui's been changed, but at the core its not a new os, its effectively Vista SE.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

i havent found many apps that just wont work in vista, i have found a few, but they where mostly OLD ASS apps I kept around and was just to lazy to replace with newer apps.

A lot of large businesses have specialty apps, not ones that are open for public consumption daily, or even in production anymore, and these computers have very unique configurations.

Downtime of even less than a day is costly for these systems. Many of these like to panic when confronted with windows XP, even. It doesn't sound like you've ever faced these scenarios.

some common quirks.

App wont show text/images in places where it should. FIX: disable visual themes in compatibility settings, also may need to disable desktop composition (same place) this is due to the way areo works, You can just disable theme's and set everything to classic windows and that will avoid alot of problems with older apps.

App install gives an error about not being able to reg a file or the like: easy fix, rclick the installer, run as administrator.

App wont/cant do what its ment to do, but gives no error message or the error message makes no sense, Try the same rout as above, run the app as administrator, THIS IS VERY COMMON, cant tell you how many times I myself have run into this with older apps, and even some website based programs(run the browser as administrator)

You sound as if you were an IT guy for somewhere...

But it's not exactly advanced IT management to realize users can't just "Run as admin". Their accounts are disabled for a reason. This is retarded to have to do things like this to run simple programs. Hence the hate.

 

[Meecrob]

you can use group policys to do the "run as admin" crap network wide or just for the groups that need it.

and the same apps that do not like running without "run as admin" tend to not like running on a restricted user account on XP(poor programing)

I have run into those proprietary apps more then once, most are build on a specific version of IE as their core/gui, making it really hard to upgrade/update systems since even a minor security update could break the apps, companies really should spend the money to have those apps updated to being .net based(most of this kind of app are written in VB in my exp) rather then
rely on a specific IE version or OS version for them to work, they could even have it done in silverlight (could be used on windows and osx and linux!!)

I had a client at one point who was owner of one of the local branches of a very large realistate firm, they where still using telnet apps and in some cases vb based apps that use IE as the gui to link some newer apps to the old ass telnet system, the problem they ran into was that ie4 had to be updated and ANY update broke their system, I helped them find a person who was going to the local community college to re-write the app using .net as a STANDALONE PROGRAM, they also got the source incase the need for more updates came along, they ended up paying him $750, then paid him another 750 to do a slew of updates when the head office wanted everybody to start using the new app.

Now the apps not perfect, but it wasn't that costly to replace it, it could cost alot more for a more complex app, but honestly in the end it would save alot of $ and headakes if companies would stop trying to hang onto ANCIENT apps that require a specific windows version.

Hell I have seen companies who have apps that REQUIER windows 9x, who have been FORCED to use virtualpc/vmware/exct to run those apps because corporate doesn't want to pay somebody to update the apps or buy new ones, sad part is they waste alot of money and time by using virtual machien software(it dosnt load instantly after all) in man hours spent waiting for them to load/restart, not counting the cost of buying vmware(vpc dosnt work properly for some uses....)

blah, at least neither of us are saying they should go linux with wine

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A similar statement came from Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, during Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans, who said that the Windows is the right approach, rather than a browser-centric OS such as Chrome

Ballmer is right. They tried browser-centric with Windows 98. The "browser-centric" bit never really caught on in it nor Windows ME. Windows 2000 pretty much scraped it.

Let's wait and see though...

 

[Meecrob]

Ballmer is right. They tried browser-centric with Windows 98. The "browser-centric" bit never really caught on in it nor Windows ME. Windows 2000 pretty much scraped it.

Let's wait and see though...

yeah, but ms's browser team=fail, hell even IE8 tho a large improvement is still CRAP compared to most 3rd party browsers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That is your opinion. Over 60% of people disagree with you:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10279900-16.html

It was IE5 (which premiered with Windows 98 SE) that started Microsoft's Internet browser dominance.

 

[Meecrob]

That is your opinion. Over 60% of people disagree with you:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10279900-16.html

It was IE5 (which premiered with Windows 98 SE) that started Microsoft's Internet browser dominance.

60% of people are to be frank "fucking morons" they dont know the diffrance between office and windows for christs sake.

the only reasion IE even has the market share it has is because it COME WITH WINDOWS, and most people are to GD stupid and lazy to grab another browser(my pairnts are like that...)

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Ballmer is right. They tried browser-centric with Windows 98. The "browser-centric" bit never really caught on in it nor Windows ME. Windows 2000 pretty much scraped it.

Let's wait and see though...

Microsoft probably had their ducks in line to do this.Problem is, technology was not even remotely ready for this transition. Not to mention horribly insecure. Things are getting closer, but we aren't there yet still.

Just because Microsoft screwed the pooch once doesn't mean someone else can't do it properly. cough hotmail cough. Almost everything Microsoft does, failbombs the first time.

 

[Meecrob]

or the last time *coughMEcough*

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Microsoft probably had their ducks in line to do this.Problem is, technology was not even remotely ready for this transition. Not to mention horribly insecure. Things are getting closer, but we aren't there yet still.

Just because Microsoft screwed the pooch once doesn't mean someone else can't do it properly. cough hotmail cough. Almost everything Microsoft does, failbombs the first time.

What Windows 98 proved is that a web-centric OS isn't practical (nothing more annoying than seeing a big "Web Access Not Available" for your desktop wallpaper). Some people don't have Internet (temporarily or permanently) and some people want to be able to operate free of the Internet at times (for me, that is at least once a week). Internet is provided through an application for a reason--it is an optional tool and not a required basis to launch tools from.

Netbooks may have changed the demographics but I doubt it. We'll have to wait and see. Seeing how unsuccessful Unix-based operating systems have been in the past, I don't see this changing the trend (to paraphase what Gates said).

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Netbooks may have changed the demographics but I doubt it. We'll have to wait and see. Seeing how unsuccessful Unix-based operating systems have been in the past, I don't see this changing the trend (to paraphase what Gates said).

If theres one thing you should have learned from the internet by now, is the past is not always relevant when it comes to what can be successful in the future..

Unux has never been successful.... until now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If theres one thing you should have learned from the internet by now, is the past is not always relevant when it comes to what can be successful in the future..

Unux has never been successful.... until now.

<10% total market share isn't successful--it is gasping for breath.

*nix failed back then for the same reasons it fails now--it isn't well established (limited manufacturer support, limited technical support, and limited hardware support). Mac OS X arguably deals with the GUI issues well and Google's expertise is usability. As such I think there are many parrallels between Chrome OS and Mac OS X. The only way Chrome OS could succeed where Mac OS X didn't is in licensing. That is, if Google manages to get Dell, HP, Asus, and other netbook manufacturers to ship their units with Chrome OS, it could very well succeed in that market so long as the hardware support is there.

Businesses won't use Chrome OS because it is incompatible with their domain servers. Libraries/internet cafes won't use it because it isn't compatible with their existing software.


The past is always relevant to today and tomorrow. Without yesterday, today and tomorrow wouldn't exist.

 

[Meecrob]

how would u know its incompatible? google aren stupid, they are targeting netbooks and other devices first, but that dosnt mean they wont add support for windows network features.

and *nix's far from "gasping for breath" as you you put it, Its main use roll just isnt in homes and desktops/workstations, its mostly used in servers(you know, those things the internet runs off of)

as to the past being relevant, your taking a time when the best net most people could get was 56k, today thats pretty irrelevant since most people have cable/dsl/wireless/exct that is FAR FAR faster(hundreds or thousands of times faster then 56k) and alwase on.

and i have yet to see any hard proof that chrome OS wont have apps available off-line, just speculation and assumption that it wont.

one more note about *nix, the main reason u dont see it more today is that windows has all the OEM's in their pockets, the fact is that a good distro(no ubuntu) setup properly can be very easy for even the noobies to use and lacks alot of the problems windows has for those same noobies(viruses from all the porn they download for starters)

Linux COULD take off, it just needs a good easy to use distro thats runs fast and looks decent, I cant tell you how many older systems I personaly have installed VectorLinux on for people who just want to surf the net and do some light office/school work, on systems where XP ran like shit vector runs VERY smooth, and offers a freedom that windows cant offer, lack of malware/viruses that can infect it

my advice Ford is to WAIT AND SEE, ms is loosing market share slowly but surely mostly because people dont want to buy a new os every couple years then have to deal with buggs and updates constantly, and companies are even considering alternative os's these days.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

how would u know its incompatible? google aren stupid, they are targeting netbooks and other devices first, but that dosnt mean they wont add support for windows network features.

a) Few professional applications support Linux.
b) These applications cost in excess of $10,000.
c) There's no way Google could code support for applications meant to work on Windows without violating copyrights Microsoft holds.

*nix can't do much more networking with Windows Domains than file shares. It can't be made a a puppet computer like Windows 2000 and newer can. At least not without resource costly virtual machines.

and *nix's far from "gasping for breath" as you you put it, Its main use roll just isnt in homes and desktops/workstations, its mostly used in servers(you know, those things the internet runs off of)

Only because it is cheap. Server standard costs $600 by itself. Most distros of Linux are free. If Server was free, I doubt anyone would use Linux anymore. It has more features, better application support, and a much larger selection of supported hardware. The only reason not to get it is the price.

as to the past being relevant, your taking a time when the best net most people could get was 56k, today thats pretty irrelevant since most people have cable/dsl/wireless/exct that is FAR FAR faster(hundreds or thousands of times faster then 56k) and alwase on.

Internet infrastructure in the USA is still struggling. Even those that do have highspeed internet often get disconnected. Cloud computing makes sense on intranets where you can quickly fix your own problems. Cloud computing on internet is begging for trouble. Not to mention, it is only a matter of time before ISPs start implementing bandwidth restrictions which will turn your power-only cost netbook into a pay-by-minute netbook. Effectively, that means for the life time of the machine, it is cheaper to own a laptop dispite the innitial purchase cost difference.

and i have yet to see any hard proof that chrome OS wont have apps available off-line, just speculation and assumption that it wont.

Cloud computing is its mainstay. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, without an internet connection, it is about as useful as a brick. Sure, it will surely have other bundled software on it like Google Earth but that still doesn't make it useful. When I don't have Internet, I game, for instance.

Linux COULD take off...

It had two decades to do so and still hasn't. If a technology doesn't catch on immediately upon release (within the first year), it never will.

my advice Ford is to WAIT AND SEE, ms is loosing market share slowly but surely mostly because people dont want to buy a new os every couple years then have to deal with buggs and updates constantly, and companies are even considering alternative os's these days.

That was my advice. I side with Gates and Ballmer: Google doesn't have a winning equation.

Windows was losing market share due to lack of confidence in Windows Vista. Windows 7 could entirely reverse that trend or renew it. Consumers demand Windows so they have no reason to look elsewhere.

 

[Meecrob]

a) Few professional applications support Linux.
b) These applications cost in excess of $10,000.
c) There's no way Google could code support for applications meant to work on Windows without violating copyrights Microsoft holds.

http://www.winehq.org/

http://www.codeweavers.com/

proof your wrong about windows app compatibility.

*nix can't do much more networking with Windows Domains than file shares. It can't be made a a puppet computer like Windows 2000 and newer can. At least not without resource costly virtual machines.

funny since there are a couple projects working to allow linux to be part of active directory networks.

oh on top of that, they have their own active directory equivalents one being OpenLDAP

Only because it is cheap. Server standard costs $600 by itself. Most distros of Linux are free. If Server was free, I doubt anyone would use Linux anymore. It has more features, better application support, and a much larger selection of supported hardware. The only reason not to get it is the price.

wrong again, Most webservers run linux because, the fact is its harder to hack a default server linux distro then a default windows install, Also there are things about using linux for a webserver that make it easier then dealing with the same job on windows, I have done it, and honestly, If I had to choose I would go with linux for a webserver, you can run the linux webserver on hardware that would chug with any modern windows and have it perform very well.

Internet infrastructure in the USA is still struggling. Even those that do have highspeed internet often get disconnected. Cloud computing makes sense on intranets where you can quickly fix your own problems. Cloud computing on internet is begging for trouble. Not to mention, it is only a matter of time before ISPs start implementing bandwidth restrictions which will turn your power-only cost netbook into a pay-by-minute netbook. Effectively, that means for the life time of the machine, it is cheaper to own a laptop dispite the innitial purchase cost difference.

again wheres your proof that these apps wont be installable localy if the user chooses(like office 2010 will have a free web ver and a retail installable ver)

Cloud computing is its mainstay. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, without an internet connection, it is about as useful as a brick. Sure, it will surely have other bundled software on it like Google Earth but that still doesn't make it useful. When I don't have Internet, I game, for instance.

any proof that google is so stupid they wouldnt allow you to have apps of your choice localy? if you have any please show us.

It had two decades to do so and still hasn't. If a technology doesn't catch on immediately upon release (within the first year), it never will.

hate to tell you this, but ms's half-ass attempt to put web into your desktop under 98/ME was not even close to the same thing we are talking about here, MS screwed up, we agree on that, it was just a bad implementation/execution of an idea that had some Marat, back then MS knew they couldnt really serve apps or anything truely usefull over the net, 56k CANT SUPPORT IT, hell even updates where kept as small and few as possible due to the state of the internet back then.

That was my advice. I side with Gates and Ballmer: Google doesn't have a winning equation.

Windows was losing market share due to lack of confidence in Windows Vista. Windows 7 could entirely reverse that trend or renew it. Consumers demand Windows so they have no reason to look elsewhere.

no windows is loosing market share due to the fact that people dont give a shit what the OS is called now, as long a they can do the tasks they want on the system with as little hassle and as much speed as possible, If they get an easy to use linux that lets them do their thing, they are just as happy as if they got windows, possibly more so since they wont need to buy an antivirus and other security software to protect the linux based setup from malware/spyware/adware/viruses/exct.

I am no *nux lover mind you, I only use it for specific tasks/purposes but the fact is all your current points are either personal opinion or just crap your spewing trying to convince the uninformed that *nix/anything not windows is crap, when in reality most people just dont know or care what os they are running, if it works to do their common tasks, they are happy period.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.winehq.org/

http://www.codeweavers.com/

proof your wrong about windows app compatibility.

Wine won't run most of these older business applications. Hell, a good lot of them won't work without IE6; moreover, emulation is not practical in a work environment. Troubleshooting one OS taxes IT enough as is.

funny since there are a couple projects working to allow linux to be part of active directory networks.

oh on top of that, they have their own active directory equivalents one being OpenLDAP

Sure, they can but it will never become commonplace. Kind of like Mono... They are only created to give Linux users and excuse to stay on Linux. They don't provide conversions from other OSs. Emulation never does.

wrong again, Most webservers run linux because...

Most webservers run linux because buying Server would take years to pay off. Businesses that aren't selling cheap webspace use Server + IIS + ASPX. Every server is prone to DoS attacks and they are by far the most common. Linux doesn't make you immune.

again wheres your proof that these apps wont be installable localy if the user chooses(like office 2010 will have a free web ver and a retail installable ver)

any proof that google is so stupid they wouldnt allow you to have apps of your choice localy? if you have any please show us.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/08/google-chrome-redefining-the-operating-system/
The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform.

hate to tell you this, but ms's half-ass attempt to put web into your desktop under 98/ME was not even close to the same thing we are talking about here, MS screwed up, we agree on that, it was just a bad implementation/execution of an idea that had some Marat, back then MS knew they couldnt really serve apps or anything truely usefull over the net, 56k CANT SUPPORT IT, hell even updates where kept as small and few as possible due to the state of the internet back then.

IE5 and IE6 was a local, intranet and internet browser. You could enter paths like C:\, \\SERVER, http://, https, and ftp://. It could run web applications (Java, JavaScript, Flash) and it was intregal to Windows 98 SE and up. The only difference between Chrome OS and it is instead of IE running on Windows, it will just be IE. It is a step backwards, not fowards.

Oh, and it is also important to mention that since IE7, IE is restricted to just internet use. Microsoft got sued by the EU mandating that IE not be included with the OS so Microsoft had to dumb it down and separate it. If the EU sues Google for the same reason, Chrome OS will be shot dead because there is no separating the browser from the UI in that case.

And no, we don't agree. IE6 was brilliant and the EU killed it.

no windows is loosing market share due to the fact that people dont give a shit what the OS is called now, as long a they can do the tasks they want on the system with as little hassle and as much speed as possible, If they get an easy to use linux that lets them do their thing, they are just as happy as if they got windows, possibly more so since they wont need to buy an antivirus and other security software to protect the linux based setup from malware/spyware/adware/viruses/exct.

I've been using Windows XP for three years now with no anti-anything.

I am no *nux lover mind you, I only use it for specific tasks/purposes but the fact is all your current points are either personal opinion or just crap your spewing trying to convince the uninformed that *nix/anything not windows is crap, when in reality most people just dont know or care what os they are running, if it works to do their common tasks, they are happy period.

If that is the attitude you are going to have, then I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Frick]

Hah, meecrob kinda reminds me of Alecstaar.

Anyway, I think it will be interesting too see what this could do. It's not revolutionary, but as Google has done some neat things before it might be pretty darn cool.

 

[Meecrob]

Wine won't run most of these older business applications. Hell, a good lot of them won't work without IE6; moreover, emulation is not practical in a work environment. Troubleshooting one OS taxes IT enough as is.

http://www.virtualbox.org/
then they could run 9x apps on 9x, nt apps on nt, 2k apps on 2k, xp apps on xp, and still run whatever host os they like.

oh yeah, and its 100% free and works very well(thanks SUN)

Most webservers run linux because buying Server would take years to pay off. Businesses that aren't selling cheap webspace use Server + IIS + ASPX. Every server is prone to DoS attacks and they are by far the most common. Linux doesn't make you immune.

DoS/DDoS is something ANY ipv4 connection is susceptible to windows is far from immune or better and dealing with it. and no, expensive hosts tend to offer a mix allowing the client to choose linux or windows hosting for the same price, windows is no better for web hosting then linux, infact the server running linux tends to give you a better value because the OS isnt eating up as many resources.

linux/bsd(unix) are less prone to being hacked and remote exploited when compaired to the common windows server, this isnt because windows itself is any less secure, its because by default windows(till server 2008) wasnt properly locked down, where linux by design is far more restrictive, anybody whos used linux as a user rather then root didnt complain about UAC because UAC is no more annoying then the way linux constantly wants a password for every damn tweak you want to do.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/08/google-chrome-redefining-the-operating-system/
The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform.

theres no proof of what googles going to do there, just a pundit/blogger posting his thoughts and speculation, same as all the other articles about chrome os.

IE5 and IE6 was a local, intranet and internet browser. You could enter paths like C:\, \\SERVER, http://, https, and ftp://. It could run web applications (Java, JavaScript, Flash) and it was intregal to Windows 98 SE and up. The only difference between Chrome OS and it is instead of IE running on Windows, it will just be IE. It is a step backwards, not fowards.

thats your OPINION, as to the IE thing, I haven't used IE for anything more then windows update and the rare activeX site in years, Opera, Safari 3/4, Chrome, and even FF offer a better user experience and are more secure(FF being the least secure once you add alot of extensions).

IE8 is a step in the right direction, but it still doesn't properly support W3C specs/standards

Oh, and it is also important to mention that since IE7, IE is restricted to just internet use. Microsoft got sued by the EU mandating that IE not be included with the OS so Microsoft had to dumb it down and separate it. If the EU sues Google for the same reason, Chrome OS will be shot dead because there is no separating the browser from the UI in that case.

sorry, but I have zero issue with the browser not being an intagral part of the os, its still requiered if you want to use windows update or alot of MS sites, and being its not locked into the OS it should stop/slow the use if IE as the core/gui of many business apps, this is a good thing since it means those apps wont be as easly broken by moving from os to os or windows version to windows version(or even by updating IE with security patches)

And no, we don't agree. IE6 was brilliant and the EU killed it.

....this pretty much prooves the opinion I have formed of you after your SLI rant(insisting its 100% hardware based...)

anybody who thinks IE3-4-5-6-7 where great......well I dont want banned so I wont say what I and others are thinking.

I've been using Windows XP for three years now with no anti-anything.

funny, wonder how many viruses your system has, or how much is going on that you dont know about, I know people like you who insist/insisted they didnt/dont need an antivirus, every one of them has ended up having to reinstall far more often then those I know who run a decent AV, some learned and started running a decent AV, the others still insist they reinstall so much for other reasons, your probbly one of those types that also never wares a rubber when they have sex, good luck with that as well.

If that is the attitude you are going to have, then I'm done with this discussion.

no real loss here, Your spouting miss-information about linux and non-windows OS's stops then I dont really got any more reason to tell you your wrong.

As I said, Im a windows user, but it isnt the best os in the world for everything, even a windows fanboi like me will admit that, ofcorse unlike many windows fanboi's i have experience with non-windows os's and networks(started out on novel and IBM ringbus networks for god's sake) so I can speak a bit more intelligently about whats possible.

when it comes to Chrome OS, nobody here knows what it will turn out to be like, hell only people who WORK FOR GOOGLE have any clue where google is headed with it, the rest is speculation.

One Question, Ford do you work for MS?

 

[Meecrob]

Hah, meecrob kinda reminds me of Alecstaar.

Anyway, I think it will be interesting too see what this could do. It's not revolutionary, but as Google has done some neat things before it might be pretty darn cool.

I know alec, but im not him, hes a true ass, Oh and he wouldnt be defending a non-windows OS, he really doesn't like *nix, hell, hes 99% a Delphi programmer who works with win32, he even hates x64 because he sees it as pointless.

but I wont back down when I see somebody spouting BS trying to convence the uninformed that mis-information and opinion are fact.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

One Question, Ford do you work for MS?

No.


No comment on the rest. I'll leave those discussions for when it comes out.

 

[Deleted member 3]

I do know that Microsoft loves to give away tons of free copies of Windows in these countries and then claim it back as "charity" -- funny, since it's hardly costing them anything...

Indeed, Google invest millions in it... a wait... they too don't spent a dime to help those poor little Africans.

 

[btarunr]

I do know that Microsoft loves to give away tons of free copies of Windows in these countries and then claim it back as "charity" -- funny, since it's hardly costing them anything...

It's called Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and it gives those people what they need the most. Medicine.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, a computer without electricty is less useful than a stick.


Microsoft's charity is getting Windows and Office to not-for-profit businesses (libraries, churches, etc.) for cheap. Libraries, for instance, can buy Windows Server 2008 Datacenter for $120. That would cost $3000 (per processor) for anyone else.