Google pc

[sm]

windows-free, GoogleOS powered pc (code named "Google Cube") priced at $200 coming soon to a walmart store near you

Via here and here

 

[zanzan]

wow... i think google is expanding their buisness to OS now... woot! cant wait to read the review on the OS if its true.

 

[Genialnames]

It would be great, if only they want to do something that is more competitive and reliable than MS.

 

[weblord]

google done it again, i like my os called gooooggleos

 

[PoorDoggie]

Surely as MS have an entire company working on windows, and google only have the people doing it in their extra curricular time, MS will still be leading for a while unfortunately

Everyone hates Microsoft though, and loves google. Microsoft exploit people because they can. Because everything runs on Microsoft etc.

Google are good because almost everything is free. They also know that the more do, the more other companies will need advertising, and the more Google becomes commercialised, the more they will buy advertising through Google.

What will be strange though is if Google does do all this stuff that it is rumored to do, eventually there won't be big enough companies to advertise with them. They will have to make money some other way, and if they own the biggest shares in these markets, then they will be able to raise the prices. Then we will be sorry.

 

[Genialnames]

Google it is a very big and rich company, not as much as MS it is but
they can afford any operation they can think of ,IMHO
I would be not surprised if the OS will sponsorwhare stuff.

 

[tm]

Google have denied the claim that they are making a google PC, and they were quick to do it too.

Sorry to dissapoint you guys

 

[sm]

there's a common misconception that Microsoft is evil because it charges for it's software whereas google is great because it's search services are free.

The thing is that their revenue generation models differ. In Microsoft's case, the revenue primarily comes from sales of its OS and Office Suite. In Google's case the revenues come from advertising. None of these companies run a charity outfit. Far from it. Both are profit making (which is quite fine... people spend more money buying themselves coffee on an annual basis than purchasing a Windows OS). Yet in the blogosphere and elsewhere M$ is wicked and Google is great. Why ? Because to even run a computer (unless you're on linux), you need to get a Microsoft OS license. But to use google you dont need to pay anything. only advertisers pay. But heck, that was just a coincidence ... it was not as if the google guys sat down and devised a strategy that would ensure that common folks dont pay .... it is just the nature of how this business is: most dont pay a cent, some pay lots. On the other hand for OSes, most pay, some dont........ So that's why people think aaaah M$ is wicked, google is great. But in fact it's just a coincidence that their respective businesses had models like they do... it's not as if someone is sitting and planning : lets loot the guys.

 

[tm]

there's a common misconception that Microsoft is evil because it charges for it's software whereas google is great because it's search services are free.

Microsoft, are in fact, evil because they are microsoft.

 

[sm]

you'll say the same thing about google a few years from now

 

[PoorDoggie]

there's a common misconception that Microsoft is evil because it charges for it's software whereas google is great because it's search services are free.

No Microsoft are evil because they have gained a mass following, and used it for their own selfish greed.

I am forced to use Microsoft because nothing is compatible with anything else, the rest of my family uses it (we have about 6 computers between 4 of us) so I would have serious networking problems, Linux won't pick up my hardware, etc...

For instance: My computer recently crashed. I don't have a windows disk because I didn't get one with the computer, (I got some Repair Disk, which I had lost somewhere). I went to the Windows website, etc... etc... Everywhere pointed to the same conclusion... I was going to have to spend £200 on a brand new Windows XP disk, just because my computer had crashed. All my programs work on Xp, sometimes my friends give me programs and stuff that work on XP. ActiveX pages don't work in Linux, and there are no downloads for Linux. etc.. grumble, moan.

The point is that Microsoft is evil because they have the largest part of the OS market, and they are exploiting people. If more people used alternative OSs then there would be more choice concerning software (just like if you go and buy a case for your phone, you have a choice as to which phone you would like to buy the case for)and compatibility between OSs, but at the moment Windows owns the most of the market, so people just write programs for Windows, and only write Webpages for IE, etc....

I don't believe Google would do this. I believe google would keep everything Linux-like. Open source is the way to go, and Google really like open source suppliers, so this should be the way it stays.

I did hear about google denying everything BTW... but you never know, mayb they want it to be more of a surprise. It would be great I think!

 

[tm]

you're 100% right, they are exploiting people.

At my school for example, for every PUPIL, NOT computer (!!), they have to pay £100+.
So thats about 1500+ users, with about half as much computers.

Being a school, they don't have unlimited funds.

Microsucks.

 

[Peter]

I am forced to use Microsoft because nothing is compatible with anything else, the rest of my family uses it (we have about 6 computers between 4 of us) so I would have serious networking problems, Linux won't pick up my hardware, etc...

So it is microsoft's fault that linux does not necessarily support your hardware. Can you please explain this?

For instance: My computer recently crashed. I don't have a windows disk because I didn't get one with the computer, (I got some Repair Disk, which I had lost somewhere). I went to the Windows website, etc... etc... Everywhere pointed to the same conclusion... I was going to have to spend £200 on a brand new Windows XP disk, just because my computer had crashed. All my programs work on Xp, sometimes my friends give me programs and stuff that work on XP. ActiveX pages don't work in Linux, and there are no downloads for Linux. etc.. grumble, moan.

It is not microsoft's fault that the shop you bought your pc does not supply you with thye installation disk. By microsoft's TOS I beleive they are obliged too yet alot do not (even tho technically when you bought your pc you paid for the licence)

The point is that Microsoft is evil because they have the largest part of the OS market, and they are exploiting people. If more people used alternative OSs then there would be more choice concerning software (just like if you go and buy a case for your phone, you have a choice as to which phone you would like to buy the case for)and compatibility between OSs, but at the moment Windows owns the most of the market, so people just write programs for Windows, and only write Webpages for IE, etc....

Again why is it microsoft's fault that some developers do not write code for linux? Although if you do a proper search you will find there is a multitude of packages available for linux, some that are in fact quite competetive with their respective windows counter parts.

I don't believe Google would do this. I believe google would keep everything Linux-like. Open source is the way to go, and Google really like open source suppliers, so this should be the way it stays.

Since when is google open source? They provide source for things that would work with their services but their own services and programs are certainly not open source.

Do not get me wrong, I do not think that microsoft does everything the way they should but they are only pointed at so much because of their position. Their operation is a business it is their to make money which is exactly the same as google.

 

[PoorDoggie]

So it is microsoft's fault that linux does not necessarily support your hardware. Can you please explain this?

No, it is not necessarilly Microsoft's fault that linux dosen't support my hardware, but it is Microsoft's fault that my hardware providers don't supply software to run on linux because Microsoft have become so big that suppliers assume that most of their customers will use Windows.

It is not microsoft's fault that the shop you bought your pc does not supply you with thye installation disk. By microsoft's TOS I beleive they are obliged too yet alot do not (even tho technically when you bought your pc you paid for the licence)

No, again, but if there were less restrictions I could easilly get a cheap replacement, or free replacement. If google were to make an OS it would be free, I would asume. Microsoft put their licence agreement together in such a way that you either pay for another licence or you are stuck. You see, with my antivirus program, I had to download it. They asked me to provide a username and password. If I were to ruin my computer and lose the software, I can just log back in and download the software again, but Microsoft won't do this, or anything like it because they are greedy money-sucking idiots, but amazingly good entrepreneurs.

Again why is it microsoft's fault that some developers do not write code for linux? Although if you do a proper search you will find there is a multitude of packages available for linux, some that are in fact quite competetive with their respective windows counter parts.

If I was a software developer, I would not write software for the minute number of Linux users out there. I wouldn't even write it for the Mac users either. I know that most of my customers would be Windows users, and especially if I am providing a Freeware program, I am not going to bother with re-writing it for the minor OSs out there. That is not technically Microsoft's fault, but the fact that Microsoft is so big means that this is going to happen. If the share in the OS market was more equal, then maybe a variety of programs would be written.

I must admit that I have never searched for Linux programs, and although I agree that there is probably a lot out there, and just as good as the Windows stuff, it is not the same. I recently downloaded OpenOffice.ORG for my PC because I don't have a Office Disk (again... will have to pay out for one of those). It is not the same, nor anywhere near as good as microsoft office. OK, this is because Microsoft has a massive community of software developers and the money to get resources and programmers etc... but this still states my point that there is no good programs. Also, I use Itunes for instance. Now you cannot get a linux version of Itunes. Apple, one of the largest companies in the world, does not develop programs for linux, although develops them for their direct rival Microsoft.

Since when is google open source? They provide source for things that would work with their services but their own services and programs are certainly not open source.

Google supports open source programs, and if a Google OS were to emerge then it would most certainly be open source. Google is almost open source as well. They provide an API service for a lot of their offerings, which allows you to almost create google again. It also allows you to do a multitude of other things. My search engine runs off google: http://6yd.net. They don't charge me, or force me to put adverts on my site or anything.

Their operation is a business it is their to make money which is exactly the same as google.

Yes... "exactly the same as google"... but Google are making a lot of money from advertising. Microsoft make it from exploiting their customers. But I do feel there will eventually become a time when Google are so big that they suddenly turn around and start exploiting everyone as well. At the moment, I use Google over 20 times a day at least, whether it be for searching the web, images or anything else, and I don't pay anything whatsoever. I use Microsoft once, and I paid £200 ish for the licence. I don't use hotmail anymore because Gmail offers 8x as much space for free. Hotmail offer 1/2 as much as google for a price.

Google care about the people using their service.
Microsoft only care about people using their service.

 

[Peter]

No, it is not necessarilly Microsoft's fault that linux dosen't support my hardware, but it is Microsoft's fault that my hardware providers don't supply software to run on linux because Microsoft have become so big that suppliers assume that most of their customers will use Windows.

Well again that is a failling on the part of the hardware manufacturer but in all honesty many do now provide linux drivers. If not try searching some people actually write their own and make them available.

No, again, but if there were less restrictions I could easilly get a cheap replacement, or free replacement. If google were to make an OS it would be free, I would asume. Microsoft put their licence agreement together in such a way that you either pay for another licence or you are stuck. You see, with my antivirus program, I had to download it. They asked me to provide a username and password. If I were to ruin my computer and lose the software, I can just log back in and download the software again, but Microsoft won't do this, or anything like it because they are greedy money-sucking idiots, but amazingly good entrepreneurs.

But the point is it is not upto microsoft to do this. If you bought a cd version of norton anti virus I very much doubt they would allow you to download a digital version. The same goes for microsoft if you should have a cd version why should they provide you with an alternative. If the shop provided you with what you paid for then there would be no problem at all.

If I was a software developer, I would not write software for the minute number of Linux users out there. I wouldn't even write it for the Mac users either. I know that most of my customers would be Windows users, and especially if I am providing a Freeware program, I am not going to bother with re-writing it for the minor OSs out there. That is not technically Microsoft's fault, but the fact that Microsoft is so big means that this is going to happen. If the share in the OS market was more equal, then maybe a variety of programs would be written.

So what are you suggesting?? maybe that it is microsoft should disband because they have been successful, somehow tho I doubt that is going to happen.

I must admit that I have never searched for Linux programs, and although I agree that there is probably a lot out there, and just as good as the Windows stuff, it is not the same. I recently downloaded OpenOffice.ORG for my PC because I don't have a Office Disk (again... will have to pay out for one of those). It is not the same, nor anywhere near as good as microsoft office. OK, this is because Microsoft has a massive community of software developers and the money to get resources and programmers etc... but this still states my point that there is no good programs. Also, I use Itunes for instance. Now you cannot get a linux version of Itunes. Apple, one of the largest companies in the world, does not develop programs for linux, although develops them for their direct rival Microsoft.

To say that there are no good pieces of software for linux is just wrong in my opinion and very unfair to the developers. The example you use is open office, this is in fact a very good piece of software. The main problem with linux and software that was originally intended for it is that it is not as easy to pick up and use or people have got too used to the way windows programs work. Again not a microsoft failling they did the right thing and made sure that they provided a way for software develoers to make their software intuitive and laid out in similar ways.

Regarding iTunes I beleive there is a program that will work with linux although apple (you do actually realise they are the manufacturers of macsright?) are not the people who made it, the following may interest:-

http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=1000 (although that is about running through wine which enables some windows programs to run via linus)

Google supports open source programs, and if a Google OS were to emerge then it would most certainly be open source. Google is almost open source as well. They provide an API service for a lot of their offerings, which allows you to almost create google again. It also allows you to do a multitude of other things. My search engine runs off google: http://6yd.net. They don't charge me, or force me to put adverts on my site or anything.

Providing an api does not make a company open source. Providing source code for their applications is how they would become open source. Do they provide the source for their search engine, google talk, google desktop, gmail etc? If providing an api made a company open source then many companies would be considered open source such as enom, directi to name a few etc.

Google care about the people using their service.
Microsoft only care about people using their service.

Yes microsoft only care about people using their service but that is exactly true for google as well. Since when do they help hotmail customers make the most out of their emails or msn search with their searches. Any company only cares about their customers and getting more. If you are not possibly going to be a customer of theirs then they will do nothing to help you.

 

[sm]

very valid points flexiwebhost. This is what I call a mature, balanced set of views. A difference in business models is somehow seen by many people as virtuous in the case of google and exploitative in the case of microsoft. If the google founders had been in the OS business right from the start rather than search, they would probably have adopted the same business model that Microsoft has adopted (or maybe not, but the point is neither of them are charity shops). It makes as much good business sense for Microsoft to charge customers for it's OS and Office Suites, as it does for domainers to buy and sell domains for pure profit. In fact, even more so ....... Comparing what Microsoft does to what domainers do, I'd even say if M$ sucks, so do all the domainers in the world who trade domains for a profit (why not after all, since this is business here that we're talking about and in fact microsoft works pretty hard as a company to deliver it's line of products...)

it's time for folks to get a little level headed, and think sensibly. I guess you hit the target with some of your posts

 

[PoorDoggie]

Well again that is a failling on the part of the hardware manufacturer but in all honesty many do now provide linux drivers. If not try searching some people actually write their own and make them available.



But the point is it is not upto microsoft to do this. If you bought a cd version of norton anti virus I very much doubt they would allow you to download a digital version. The same goes for microsoft if you should have a cd version why should they provide you with an alternative. If the shop provided you with what you paid for then there would be no problem at all.




So what are you suggesting?? maybe that it is microsoft should disband because they have been successful, somehow tho I doubt that is going to happen.



To say that there are no good pieces of software for linux is just wrong in my opinion and very unfair to the developers. The example you use is open office, this is in fact a very good piece of software. The main problem with linux and software that was originally intended for it is that it is not as easy to pick up and use or people have got too used to the way windows programs work. Again not a microsoft failling they did the right thing and made sure that they provided a way for software develoers to make their software intuitive and laid out in similar ways.

Regarding iTunes I beleive there is a program that will work with linux although apple (you do actually realise they are the manufacturers of macsright?) are not the people who made it, the following may interest:-

http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=1000 (although that is about running through wine which enables some windows programs to run via linus)




Providing an api does not make a company open source. Providing source code for their applications is how they would become open source. Do they provide the source for their search engine, google talk, google desktop, gmail etc? If providing an api made a company open source then many companies would be considered open source such as enom, directi to name a few etc.



Yes microsoft only care about people using their service but that is exactly true for google as well. Since when do they help hotmail customers make the most out of their emails or msn search with their searches. Any company only cares about their customers and getting more. If you are not possibly going to be a customer of theirs then they will do nothing to help you.

Alright, I agree, it is not necesarilly Microsoft's fault that they have become so big, and everyone uses them. I do appologise for saying there are no good programs for Linux, I have used some of them before, but there is really no substitute for Microsoft. They are very big, and maybe I shouldn't hate them so much because they do provide extremely good products. I seriouslly don't know where I would be without Microsoft, they do a lot for people, but there is no lee-way with them. I would rather use Google which seem much nicer, but then again, they aren't as big as Microsoft, and if they were then they would probably be the same as them. I do however feel that Microsoft know that they have this mass following, and that they know that ordinary people have "no choice but to use them", and they are building on that. OK, I agree this dosen't make them necessarilly evil, but I exaggerate a lot. :lol:

very valid points flexiwebhost. This is what I call a mature, balanced set of views. A difference in business models is somehow seen by many people as virtuous in the case of google and exploitative in the case of microsoft. If the google founders had been in the OS business right from the start rather than search, they would probably have adopted the same business model that Microsoft has adopted (or maybe not, but the point is neither of them are charity shops). It makes as much good business sense for Microsoft to charge customers for it's OS and Office Suites, as it does for domainers to buy and sell domains for pure profit. In fact, even more so ....... Comparing what Microsoft does to what domainers do, I'd even say if M$ sucks, so do all the domainers in the world who trade domains for a profit (why not after all, since this is business here that we're talking about and in fact microsoft works pretty hard as a company to deliver it's line of products...)

it's time for folks to get a little level headed, and think sensibly. I guess you hit the target with some of your posts

If I were Bill Gates, I would exploit people. I also know that Google exploit people, and are probably building up to exploiting people. Google just do it in a much nicer way.

 

[cache]

they are similar in some degree. However more (or most) people hate Microsoft. If you invent something, then you are entitled to benefit from it. Microsoft does not invent much, while google is still inventing new things.

 

[sm]

some of their recent inventions (for instance gtalk) seems more like a computer science grads vacation project...... not bad but coming from a company of the size and resources of google, it's a B grade product.

On the other hand, i like google maps and gmail, apart from search... so yeah they are inventive.... but they're not the Gods they're made out to be.

 

[PoorDoggie]

some of their recent inventions (for instance gtalk) seems more like a computer science grads vacation project...... not bad but coming from a company of the size and resources of google, it's a B grade product.

I was really disapointed with gtalk. It was really bad, especially the lack of smilies, etc... Google need to try harder in some aspects. I think that they asume that loads of people will use them because they hate microsoft, but a lot of people hate microsoft but love their programs, and use them all the time. I don't think a lot of people associate Microsoft with MSN anyhow.

On the other hand, i like google maps and gmail, apart from search... so yeah they are inventive.... but they're not the Gods they're made out to be.

I think they could be the Gods people make them out to be. People want it, thats the point. Google seem to be this nice, faceless, company. (ie: Microsoft are always in the news, and flashing themselves around, and to an extent so are Yahoo, but google just sit tight. I don't see any adverts for Google on the TV, radio or anywhere. They never make any of the newspapers (not big articles anyway) and never by their own creation, only because of other people investigating. I don't know about the US though). I also think to some extent that Yahoo and MSN are too personal. All that content is just a bit too "in your life", which is great, but I don't want all that stuff, and I think people just want a search engine, and not these all round "everything" sites.

 

[sm]

the problem with google at the moment is it's beta culture. while at one point, it was a cool concept ...... enabling them to launch products fast.... but now it's beginning to show up unprofessional ... they dont follow up on many of their products (half of their products are more a 3 or 4 guy product than a Google-product if you know what i mean)..... look at orkut.. half the time you get the "Sorry No donut for you. Try again after some time" or something like that Then GTalk... a disgrace to a wonderful company, then Google Video Search (recently launched)... nowhere near as good as the corresponding service from apple, even though they are trying to differentiate themselves by letting sellers set their own pricing ...... then you have Google Pack, which is basically a nice googlish name for what is essentially a windows service pack, with half the products in them from third parties hehe.

What google is doing is trying to leverage it's tremendous goodwill and popularity at the moment. But they shouldnt forget that what did make them hugely popular was: great products.... not some junk betas.