Google Please make an OS!

[1q3er5]

Hah bet you guys know what this is about. Yup Vista + Alan Wake

What Microsoft really needs is a competitor. Someone with deep pockets...mmmm GOOGLE!! Linux isn't cutting it.

Instead of Direct X, Google should simply support OpenGL which is open source.

If Microsoft keeps this up I'm sure some developers will switch to support the new OS.

And no XBOX version for me, I want the game in all its glory (which i won't buy because of microsoft)

I hope the EU sues them over Alan Wake and other exclusives :)

[Valhalla]

Hah bet you guys know what this is about. Yup Vista + Alan Wake

What Microsoft really needs is a competitor. Someone with deep pockets...mmmm GOOGLE!! Linux isn't cutting it.

Apparently you never heard of Apple and Mac OS. You never heard of checking if there is already a Vista+ AW thread on these forums.

*sarcasm alert*

Yeah google should make an OS,and then Yahoo! too, hell....how about all search engine companies make an OS. Fantastic idea. I will write a strongly worded letter to Google regarding this idea right away.

Oh wait...you're a new member. I guess I was a little harsh on you. In the future, look in the forums if there is already a thread discussing this topic, instead of making another pointless one (with some added strange idea about google OS)

[Balthier]

Yeah, well microsofts monoploy is bad, they need a competitor in the OS market, sooner or later though they already lost the explorer race to FireFox.
the search engine to Google and the email to Yahoo.

[ulysses79]

Google & Sony should make an OS, it should be great :)

[ancient]

they already lost the explorer race to FireFox. the search engine to Google and the email to Yahoo.

Nope, Internet Explorer is still the king with ~75%. Check the market share stats (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0).

[Raveness]

Maybe he meant the quality and features race, cuz elsewise he's patently wrong and likely to be so for at least another decade. In June Microsoft is going back to playing catch-up again.

The OP is right, Microsoft needs a strong competitor in the PC OS field, one driven towards streamlining & user-friendliness. Unfortunately the companies with the deep pockets that could do so are even more afraid of taking on the titan. Their risk management divisions look at the cost of such an endeavor as hard dollars & cents figures rather than a small percent of profit margins. When you are a 'yes man' and it's your job to give lip service to tightass shareholders, it's better to say how many millions it costs rather than how its just 5-7% of quarterlies.

[1q3er5]

Umm ya I have heard of Apple's OS but SERIOUSLY. Thats all I have to say. SERIOUSLY.

To Vahalla? So you don't want Microsoft to have competition? Any competition is good even its by another giant like google who could actually make it work, hell get Nvidia and ATI AMD/Intel as well and just shut microsoft out!!! :lol:

Ya this is my first post/thread. I am so displeased with Microsoft I signed up
to vent my anger, its very theraputic.

IMHO even XP is bloated.

Again I hope the EU sues again over Microsofts monopolistic actions which leaves even gaming untouched.

[EnixLHQ]

Why scream at an empire for doing what they can do well? They got to where they were by producing a product that people could use, marketed it really well, and scored great business deals.

Why not yell at Starbucks for doing the same? Or their biggest competitor, Duncan Donuts? Walmart? Sam's Club? McDonalds? SC Johnson? Disney? We could blam Crispy Creme, too!

Oh, wait, perhaps the reason is because there apparently is no competition for Microsoft in the OS game. Well, we really already know that's not true. After all, there is Apple and Linux. Oh, and Amiga. Hell, even IBM has their own, based off of Unix.

Now, I'm not going to jump on the 'love Microsoft' bandwagon, because I'm not a fanboy, but every industry has its giants and monopolies. Every industry has something that someone does the best (or at least markets the best) and has the largest share because of it. MS has done no differently, using no tactics that have otherwise been more or less underhanded in any other field of business.

'But what about the lawsuits? If they weren't so shifty, there wouldn't be lawsuits!', you might flame. Well, yes, that's true, but in not such a clear way as the media has gone out of their way to present it. The Information Technology field of business is still relatively new. We are finding, as a global community, that certain laws work well in say, manufacturing, that don't translate well to intellectual properties on a digital medium. So, that being said, most of the lawsuits that MS had to face have actually been the growing pains of exploring this new business frontier.

Expect more of the same when someone starts the 'At Home Portable Thought Extractor' market. Just like it did when we started the 'Home and Personal Protection' market. Mace was outlawed, but do you think the makers and manufacturers of it were intentionally doing something that warranted outlawing? Taser almost suffered the same fate, until major police districts began adopting their products.

The only thing I agree with this thread is that MS needs some healthy competition. How better to stir up the feature sets and interoperability people want than to force some good ol' Capitalist supply and demand out there? We're free to do it, by the way. The laws are set, and MS doesn't have a legal (or illegal) monopoly. So get in your basements or garages and get cracking! Obviously Apple and company aren't ready to chance their mettle against an established and time-tested Microsoft, so it's up to us.

In other words, if you want a new OS, build one. No one's stopping you. Not even the mean ol' big baddy, Microsoft. Nope, no monsters under the bed here.

And hey, if you do a real good job of it, I'd even be willing to buy some stock.

[sdrawkcab]

^ What more can I say? Excellent post.

[Raveness]

Why scream at an empire for doing what they can do well?
To avoid complacency. No matter how good of a product they deliver or how well they supply it readily, they should never feel they are doing enough, or it will stunt any dynamic growth. Since its obvious MS could be doing better with delivering quality over quantity, the screaming is warranted to a degree, as long as ‘screaming’ means to back a counter-argument with intelligent, constructive discourse, obviously excluding the mouth breathing vomit from certain members in the other thread. All those other companies you mentioned are further examples of mass producers of substandard quality.

How better to stir up the feature sets and interoperability people want than to force some good ol' Capitalist supply and demand out there?
Problem is that the major market share, the technologically apathetic end-users and PC manufacturers, don’t give two shits about feature sets and interoperability because they have so firmly entrenched their expectations into whatever they are fed by Microsoft. Essentially the demand is whatever Microsoft supplies them with, and they are fine with that because its not their business to care any further.

In other words, if you want a new OS, build one. No one's stopping you. Not even the mean ol' big baddy, Microsoft. Nope, no monsters under the bed here.
Eh, what was Linux, mate? As a competitor, I don’t need to be sold the OS, I need to be sold the market strategies that will overcome the entrenched titan. I need to be on such a level that I could make major retail outlets stock a POS like Windows ME without batting an eyelash when the unsuspecting Mom & Pop customers are told it is the latest & greatest.

[Maddieman]

Hah bet you guys know what this is about. Yup Vista + Alan Wake

Whoa...dé jà vu (http://www.alanwake.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1403). :eh:

EDIT: I'm in a good mood, and I'm supposed to be writing an essay for uni... so I'll just move this for now, provided you keep this about the OS market and not alan wake, Vista, DX10, etc, (please use the other thread for that).

[EnixLHQ]

To avoid complacency. No matter how good of a product they deliver or how well they supply it readily, they should never feel they are doing enough, or it will stunt any dynamic growth.

Precisely why these companies need competition in order to force them to dial in their focus to what their consumers really need, rather than just the next best fad. This is also were our greatest tool, money, can be best used.

Don't rant, flame, or bash when it comes to trying to get your point across to a company who's looking at surveys and statistics. You'll be heard, but to what extent? If money is still being tossed at them for their product, they will continue on their path, seeing your rant as little more than preference. Instead, target their wallets and boycott.

If you really have something behind your opinion, you can bet others are feeling the same. The more that join you, the tighter their belts get until they have to give in or cave in.

All those other companies you mentioned are further examples of mass producers of substandard quality.

Substandard? Granted, I can't really say that Dunken or Crispy Creme make better donuts than, say, Safeway or the local pastry shop, but I can sure tell you that Starbucks makes a damn good mocha. Arguably, none of my list could really be labeled 'substandard'. And neither could Windows. After all, what's the standard?

Problem is that the major market share, the technologically apathetic end-users and PC manufacturers, don’t give two shits about feature sets and interoperability because they have so firmly entrenched their expectations into whatever they are fed by Microsoft. Essentially the demand is whatever Microsoft supplies them with, and they are fine with that because its not their business to care any further.

But those people, the ones who frantically call their 14 year old neighbor whenever they get an email notification and wonder if it's a virus, aren't the majority of people who buy from Microsoft. We are. We buy their games, we buy their OSes, and we buy the things they co- or assist-produce.

Granted (to overuse the word), the majority of people who buy a PC off the shelf aren't what you'd call 'enthusiasts', but those people aren't pushing their systems to the limit, buying the latest video cards and games. However, we are, and we choose either Windows XP or Vista to run on it. Everything we play could be written for Mac, but right now they aren't. If we, as a gaming community, pushed for Mac or another OS to be our poison of choice, you can bank on the fact suddenly Mac would see an increase of sales and an influx of software packages written for it.

Again, we dictate what we want in an OS, and the two BIGGEST user groups that Microsoft was able to discern from their sales are gamers and businesses. And so, they produced an OS that caters to both. Bugs aside, Vista stands poised to be a powerhouse when it comes to delivering gaming and business needs.

Eh, what was Linux, mate? As a competitor, I don’t need to be sold the OS, I need to be sold the market strategies that will overcome the entrenched titan. I need to be on such a level that I could make major retail outlets stock a POS like Windows ME without batting an eyelash when the unsuspecting Mom & Pop customers are told it is the latest & greatest.

This is theoretically an easy thing to do and Apple has done a wonderful job in the marketing game with the iPod and iPhone. So why aren't they the major OS? They can certainly sell in established markets like music and telecommunications, so why not the OS? What are they missing?

I used Mac OS 9 and 10 for 4 years while designing graphics for a shirt company. Mac was the OS of choice in the design industry at the time due to their lower cost software and stability. (Amiga was a strong candidate as well since they had what we used already built it, but that OS had its own problems.) From personally using those systems and seeing their graphical power, it blew me away that more games weren't written for it. And now Mac is using Intel and x86/64 based hardware, so the basic hardware layer difference has been dissolved. Mac actually uses ATI and nVidia hardware! Still, not many games for it. Why? It's not marketing.

[Raveness]

Substandard? Granted, I can't really say that Dunken or Crispy Creme make better donuts than, say, Safeway or the local pastry shop, but I can sure tell you that Starbucks makes a damn good mocha. Arguably, none of my list could really be labeled 'substandard'. And neither could Windows. After all, what's the standard?
No, Starbucks does not make good coffee. They would only make good coffee if your frame of reference is worse swill brewed at other generic mass-producing shop locations. I don’t know what Sam’s Club is, but the rest I have experience with, and would have to be daft to give them any points for quality product when compared to smaller shops that do the same.

Again, we dictate what we want in an OS, and the two BIGGEST user groups that Microsoft was able to discern from their sales are gamers and businesses. And so, they produced an OS that caters to both. Bugs aside, Vista stands poised to be a powerhouse when it comes to delivering gaming and business needs.
Did you even read what I said? Grab some reading comprehension and take another look. There is hardly any ‘dictation’ away from Microsoft. They are essentially competing with themselves because they have conquered the mindset of its customers, namely the business world, and then WAY FAR behind, number 2 the gaming world. What a situation when your job is to cater to those who may refuse, and go to the competition, your old OS :P

This is theoretically an easy thing to do and Apple has done a wonderful job in the marketing game with the iPod and iPhone. So why aren't they the major OS? They can certainly sell in established markets like music and telecommunications, so why not the OS? What are they missing?
‘Theoretically’ doesn’t count for shit, and the music industry example does not have the same monopolized history as the OS industry. Apples and Oranges. Marketing is the hardest thing, and further proof exists in your example, as iPods are technically worse than many other portable music players, but yet they sold the snow to the eskimo's.

I didn’t know Apple had developed an OS for the PC and failed. My bad. Could you provide a link to which it is?

[EnixLHQ]

Wow, Raven. Fighting a little dirty? Alright.

Grab some reading comprehension and take another look.

I think you should do the same. I never said Mac made an OS for the PC. I said that the current OS 10 is no longer based off of their Motorola G processors and uses mainly Intel, and as such have also started using other traditionally PC-only hardware. Still Mac language, just written to use the fancy graphics cards and other stuff. Read it here: Mac and your PC hardware. (http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/). Oh, and just to kick you a little bit, check this out: Mac natively supports booting Windows on their machines. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html)

As for this little gem:

No, Starbucks does not make good coffee. They would only make good coffee if your frame of reference is worse swill brewed at other generic mass-producing shop locations.

I have to call you out on that. I'm sure you have for fair share of French cafe's up there, and my only personal frame of reference is my local Seattle, which among being known for our IT we're also known for our coffee. Let me point you to a list: 2007 Seattle's Best Coffee Shops (http://seattle.citysearch.com/bestof/winners/coffee). I've sampled just about every place listed here, including the number one spot. Obviously Starbucks isn't on the list, but this list isn't including mega chains, either. However, I can, in my opinion, walk into the local Safeway Starbucks, order an 'Extra Vanilla, Extra Caramel, Soy, Caramel Macchiato' and still walk out with a damn fine coffee in my hands. Quicker and cheaper, I might add, than most of the similar styled coffees offered by much of that list.

It's all preference, chere. I don't need a garnish to my coffee.

‘Theoretically’ doesn’t count for shit, and the music industry example does not have the same monopolized history as the OS industry.

Now you're trying to rile me up. Theory counts for everything, and you're just as aware of it in your own line of work as I am in mine. If in theory something doesn't pan out, or looks to be a one-way ticket to poverty, you can be damned sure that they aren't going to attempt it anyway. Theory is the first step toward any market plan, law case, or product design. Research, tests, feedback, refinement (all theory), then final revision before you actually roll out your first actual idea, product, or game plan.

Still, tit for tat, let's not argue what theory is and move on to the second part of that statement, that the music industry doesn't have the same monopolized history.

FORTUNE's Market Share Analysis and Apple's record market share. (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/01/apple-mac-hits-record-681-market-share-in-net-applications-survey/)

So Windows Xp dominates the market share. Common knowledge. In contrast, the music industry is dominated by a monopoly of a different sort: Apple Dominates.

Apple: Antitrust Target? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4207)

Ok, maybe you mean record labels. Lables like TimeWarner, and DeathRow. Ok, let's look at those.

The Music Industry as told by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry). You can read up if you want, but what's important here is to note that most smaller record labels are actually owned by one of the ones listed in the charts further down the report, and that the American market looks strikingly similar to the World market.

Not such a huge contrast as with the Windows XP market share, but again, neither are a real legal monopoly. Both have competition. So, I have to wonder, what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that no one has a chance of producing another OS that can take out Windows? Or are you saying that MS has some sort of policy that allows them to oust out the little guy who might offer competition?

Neither are true.

You just have to be able to offer something cheaper, stronger, and quicker than your competition. And then do so without forcing everyone to adopt a total new way of life from what they expect. Do that, and you will have yourself a MS killer.

Diets don't work for the same reason, you know. Lifestyle change? No one wants that. At least, not unless the change easy, cheap, and produces amazing results.

Working in your garage, yet?

[Balthier]

Google & Sony should make an OS, it should be great :)

Maybe they will, you never know.

[Raveness]

I think you should do the same. I never said Mac made an OS for the PC. I said that the current OS 10 is no longer based off of their Motorola G processors and uses mainly Intel, and as such have also started using other traditionally PC-only hardware. Still Mac language, just written to use the fancy graphics cards and other stuff. Read it here: Mac and your PC hardware. (http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/). Oh, and just to kick you a little bit, check this out: Mac natively supports booting Windows on their machines. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html)
You see I was thinking that MAC had made some headway in the PC OS market, you know, where it really counts, instead of just providing an OS for their own proprietary computer architecture.

I have to call you out on that. I'm sure you have for fair share of French cafe's up there, and my only personal frame of reference is my local Seattle, which among being known for our IT we're also known for our coffee. Let me point you to a list: 2007 Seattle's Best Coffee Shops (http://seattle.citysearch.com/bestof/winners/coffee). I've sampled just about every place listed here, including the number one spot. Obviously Starbucks isn't on the list, but this list isn't including mega chains, either. However, I can, in my opinion, walk into the local Safeway Starbucks, order an 'Extra Vanilla, Extra Caramel, Soy, Caramel Macchiato' and still walk out with a damn fine coffee in my hands. Quicker and cheaper, I might add, than most of the similar styled coffees offered by much of that list.
I’ve had coffee in several nations over the years, including US’s Washington State, in the very city you refer to, and the odd time that I ventured into a Starbucks cuz it was the only thing around, it never failed to produce less than desirable blends. In your case your weaker frame of reference makes your poor taste understandable.

Still, tit for tat, let's not argue what theory is and move on to the second part of that statement, that the music industry doesn't have the same monopolized history.

FORTUNE's Market Share Analysis and Apple's record market share. (http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/01/apple-mac-hits-record-681-market-share-in-net-applications-survey/)

So Windows Xp dominates the market share. Common knowledge. In contrast, the music industry is dominated by a monopoly of a different sort: Apple Dominates.

Apple: Antitrust Target? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4207)

Ok, maybe you mean record labels. Lables like TimeWarner, and DeathRow. Ok, let's look at those.

The Music Industry as told by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry). You can read up if you want, but what's important here is to note that most smaller record labels are actually owned by one of the ones listed in the charts further down the report, and that the American market looks strikingly similar to the World market.
Call me stupid but tape cassettes, CD’s, walkmans, stereo’s, music labels…..all had multiple brands and manufacturers on the field as far as my wallet and my memory are concerned. So for me there has been no noticeable monopoly on consumer technology until now with iTunes, iPod and so forth. Show me an example from the past where there was, where I as an average consumer was lacking choice.

So, I have to wonder, what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that no one has a chance of producing another OS that can take out Windows? Or are you saying that MS has some sort of policy that allows them to oust out the little guy who might offer competition?

Do I have to facilitate your lacking comprehension again, or are you just going to pose further questions and answers to yourself? I’ll have to repeat for the daft: As a competitor, I don’t need to be sold the OS, I need to be sold the market strategies that will overcome the entrenched titan.

This means don’t respond to me with lofty theories and vague action plans filled with wordsmithing. I already know I have to be able to offer something cheaper, stronger, quicker, and without a system shock changeover. No shit, Sherlock. Tell me how I can do any of this better than Microsoft without referring to more dictionary terms or vague statements. Best of all, and really the only pertinent thing: Show me who has done it before given similar, analogous circumstances.

[EnixLHQ]

Sounds to me like you already know everything about this subject.

So, quit holding out. Enlighten us. Frankly, I'm sick of your 'holier than thou' attitude about any of this. I've given you exactly the examples you've asked for, responded to what you've posed exactly as written, and even humored you in your own frame of reference. And, you should know by now that I understand as well as you do what you've been saying and asking. Don't act like I don't.

If I am in erre, the burden is on you to prove me wrong. Not the other way around.

[Raveness]

Holding out? What the hell are you talking about? I’m asking in general if there is some solid marketing strategy that could overcome the OS strangehold that MS has on the PC market, something that say Google could use. We're talking along two different lines, cuz all I see you outlining is what an MS killer needs to be, and I’m wondering how can someone like Google can make that killer. When I was role-playing the demanding CEO in my last paragraph, it wasn't directed to countermand what you said, unless you became a marketing guru overnight.

And Enix, c’mon, you know I’m the no bullshit sniping type, and with you it’s so easy, heart on the sleeve and all. There’s no need for riling up or getting sick & tired or taking posts with anger and laughter when the other person aint batting an eyelash on the internets, cuz soon it ventures into pathetic river crying territory. After two years, it’s quite obvious we have very little in common, so when you say you've provide examples, humored me, and shown understanding, it gets lost on me cuz I see none of that or don't care to accept what is given. If that's perceived as 'holier than thou', I couldn't care less.

Anyways I'm off to Starbucks. Their cafe's here (http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9361/starbuckskoreanvz7.jpg) serve better wireless access than coffee. Bad example though, Seoul's coffee brewing is bland in general.

[EnixLHQ]

Holding out? What the hell are you talking about? I’m asking in general if there is some solid marketing strategy that could overcome the OS strangehold that MS has on the PC market, something that say Google could use. We're talking along two different lines, cuz all I see you outlining is what an MS killer needs to be, and I’m wondering how can someone like Google can make that killer.

That's because marketing isn't going to do it alone. If it could, we'd all be on Macs.

We know Windows too well. We have people who train their entire career-lives in Windows and Windows-related software. Certifications, degrees, you name it and there's a course on it. MS even hosts a course on how to hack Windows in order to cultivate some of the security needs that they have to address.

If you want to knock MS out of the dominant position in the market, you simply have to have a better OS. Not just better for gamers, or better for business, but better for everyone.

Better.

Windows is easy. People know it. People code for it.

Give them something they want to code for MORE. Something more attractive.

[EnixLHQ]

Call me stupid but tape cassettes, CD’s, walkmans, stereo’s, music labels…..all had multiple brands and manufacturers on the field as far as my wallet and my memory are concerned. So for me there has been no noticeable monopoly on consumer technology until now with iTunes, iPod and so forth. Show me an example from the past where there was, where I as an average consumer was lacking choice.

I just noticed this. The fact that you used the term 'walkmans'. Walkman is a Sony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman) brand, but you using that term for portable tape and CD players shows you just how much control they had over the market.

[Balthier]

I just noticed this. The fact that you used the term 'walkmans'. Walkman is a Sony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman) brand, but you using that term for portable tape and CD players shows you just how much control they had over the market.

LOL just like ipos today right, i have seen more then one people called my Walkman (MP3 player) ipod, that is not a monopoly though.

[TangoIndiaMike]

'holier than thou' attitude

This = Raveness.

[EnixLHQ]

LOL just like ipos today right, i have seen more then one people called my Walkman (MP3 player) ipod, that is not a monopoly though.

You're right. It's not. However, no one we've been talking about in this thread has a real legal or illegal monopoly. Let's take the time to clarify that: a monopoly means that in a given market at a given time, a single company has sole proprietorship over that service or product. The IRS is an example of a legal monopoly, as they have the single ownership of all US taxes. I can't really find a great example of an illegal monopoly because, well, it'd be illegal and be broken up. However, look to the phone companies of the late '90's for an example where a suspected illegal monopoly was broken up by the government.

What they (everything we've talked about in this thread) actually have is the larger market share, and the marketing to make their brands household names. That's all. They are Goliaths in their industries, or in the very least, awesome marketers.

[1q3er5]

Well looks like direct X is king right now. Looks like OpenGL is pretty dead as very few developers are using it.

If all the dev's are using direct x microsoft will continue to have a stranglehold on gaming.

[Balthier]

Well looks like direct X is king right now. Looks like OpenGL is pretty dead as very few developers are using it.

If all the dev's are using direct x microsoft will continue to have a stranglehold on gaming.

lmao more people should use opengl beacuase direct x sux.

[EnixLHQ]

lmao more people should use opengl beacuase direct x sux

Why?

[Johns]

lmao more people should use opengl beacuase direct x sux.
That depends on the games/game developers.

[rel]

Google has an OS for mobile phones.
releasing sometime this year 2008.

[EnixLHQ]

Sorry for resurrecting an old, and possibly painful thread, but Google went ahead and released something of note:

Google Chrome (http://www.google.com/chrome/index.html?hl=en&brand=CHMG&utm_source=en-hpp&utm_medium=hpp&utm_campaign=en)

Not quite an OS, but it's a start. And, so far, I like it.

[Talryyn]

Been using it a few days, It needs Ad Blocker!! LOL, I know that goes against Google being Google, but it still needs it.

My wife hates it though, she keeps to firefox for now.

[EnixLHQ]

So, been using Chrome for a while now. I have to say that I really like how it's built and how each tab holds its own process. Try as I might, I can't take the sucker down in one fell swoop, even if I can crash individual tabs.

However, the security of the browser is under some high level scrutiny. A few Google searches of 'chrome' and 'security' will tell you what I mean. However, I hold out hope that these will pass as the browser matures and comes out of beta. I would hate to have to go back to Fox or IE in the long term, though really there isn't much wrong with either of them. Well, except the stability.

That being said, Chrome for browsing, and Fox for banking. It wins for me.

[Talryyn]

I have had it crash all the way twice, which I thought was odd, I thought only that tab would crash.

On the OS front, they have made one, Android...

[EnixLHQ]

Yes, but it's a mobile OS. And, I'm not sure how long the trend is going to last where you can build a product off of another system. IE: Firefox and Chrome off of Mozilla, or Android off of Linux.

[Talryyn]

I kind of just see MS and Apple in the mainstream for the time being. Time changes everything though, empires fall, stock markets crash (or not).

Google would probably use linux though for a desktop OS though, if they made/modified one.

[EnixLHQ]

Ah, now THIS is good news!

AmigaOS 4.1 (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amigaos41-ars.ars)

If you're still hung up on Vista, and don't want to run to OSX or Linux, you might have another option soon. I'm stoked to see it making another push and I hope to see it in the market soon.

[Talryyn]

OMG I think I know what love is now!! Thanks Enix!!

[Maddieman]

Been using it a few days, It needs Ad Blocker!! LOL, I know that goes against Google being Google, but it still needs it.


Yeah, I have to agree with you there. :)

Anyway, I've been using Chrome since yesterday, and the only other major thing I miss are mouse gestures - hopefully they'll implement them in a later version. Otherwise it seems like a decent alternative to the memory hungry Firefox.

[igl]

a Google OS would just use Linux at its core, like Android.
I also refuse to use chrome, to fuel the Google empire with my browsing history :) It's a American software.. no privacy assured.

[EnixLHQ]

First Look at Windows 7 (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081028-first-look-at-windows-7.html)

Hmm...

[EnixLHQ]

Well, it's unfortunate, but I'm starting to move away from Chrome. It hasn't seen a major update in some time, and the lack of compatibility (or even just lack of conforming to standard page layouts) is starting to get to me. Also, I've noticed cache errors starting to creep up in the newer designs.

Gone back to Firefox for the time being, and it seems they are currently testing for the next incremental, 3.1, that will have some interesting new java functionality. Namely, TraceMonkey (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080822-firefox-to-get-massive-javascript-performance-boost.html).

[EnixLHQ]

No sooner than I say something, I get an answer.

Chrome no longer in beta. (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-chrome-beta.html)

And they took a stab at fixing one of my chief complaints: Video.

Enjoy.