Google is Indecisive, Says Microsoft CEO
With Microsoft's Partner Conference taking place this week in New Orleans, there was bound to be questions about Google's decision to launch a Chrome operating system.
Steve Ballmer yesterday said that Google's attempt at entering the OS market was, "interesting." When the audience laughed, Ballmer insisted that he would be respectful of Google's efforts and said that the Chrome OS was "highly interesting" but went on to point out that Google already has an OS on the market (referring to Android).
"Who knows what this thing is? To me, the Chrome OS thing is highly interesting," Ballmer said, according to Reuters. "It won't happen for a year and a half and they already announced an operating system," he said, adding, "I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. It's good to have one."
As much as Ballmer is trying to laugh all this off, we're not sure he's right on the whole one operating system thing. Android is, after all, a mobile operating system for phones and Microsoft has Windows Mobile as well as Windows.
Check out the full story on Reuters.
- Steve Ballmer Has 'Developers' Moment, Again
- Apple: 1.5 Billion Apps Downloaded in the First Year
- Asus Previews Latest P7P55D Evo Design
- 41 Percent Businesses Planning for Windows 7
- Discounted Win 7 on Sept. 1, for Businesses
- Modern Warfare 2 Prestige Edition Has NVGs
- Duke Nukem Shows Up, on Facebook
- Microsoft: We Haven't Signed Off On Windows 7
- Microsoft to Launch Music Streaming Service
- Calvin Klein Making Optical Storage Solution
- Windows 7 Upgrade Discounted Preorders Hit UK
- Apple May Be Considering Matte Screens Again
- C&C4 Will Require Always-On Internet
- Windows 7 Home Premium Won't Have Backup
- QOTD: How Often Do You Backup Your Data?
- Oops! Twitter Server Password is "Password"
- Apple Blocks Palm Pre Syncing With iTunes
- We Get it Dell, You're Working on a Smartphone
I use more than one OS. Windows for gaming and work. Linux for everything else that Windows can't do or won't do. Linux has come to the rescue so many times I just can't do without it.
And what Linux can do and Windows can't. I can give list of 100s things Linux can't do that i can do under Windows.
LOL Companies should only have one OS, and Microsoft has XP, Vista, and now Windows 7, all of them with 3 or more SKU's. He is not one to talk, he's most likely scared of how much they stand to use in the Netbook market if Chrome is more practical and better performing than Windows, which I find to be QUITE likely.
This is all fear, they have no idea what to expect. They release Bing and google did not say a thing.
And what Linux can do and Windows can't. I can give list of 100s things Linux can't do that i can do under Windows.
Agreed. I can think of alot more things Windows can do that Linux can't vs. the other way around.
Dos, windows 3.1 and windows nt, hmmmm, is that hypocracy I smell?
Agreed. I can think of alot more things Windows can do that Linux can't vs. the other way around.
Yes, you actually have to know how to use an OS to be able to "do things" with it.
Yes, you actually have to know how to use an OS to be able to "do things" with it.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. You shouldn't have to know how to use an OS, you should know how to use the software you need. I shouldn't need to "know" Windows to do Photoshop, I should know how to do photo editing. I shouldn't need to "know" OSX to do Final Cut, I should know how to do video editing. A good OS lets you do the things you really need to do without you thinking about the OS.
O_o it's never a good sign when CEO's don't take competition seriously. i mean IE8 is a joke compared to chrome and FF.
I don't know how some of you people managed to work out a windows vs linux debate from this article talking about Chrome OS.
Anyway, Ballmer is awesome at putting his foot in his mouth. Google is not allowed to have more than one OS all because they don't share a common name like "Windows"? That's ridiculous. Microsoft has 5 versions of Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate. What does he have to say about that? Haha, this guy cracks me up.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. You shouldn't have to know how to use an OS, you should know how to use the software you need. I shouldn't need to "know" Windows to do Photoshop, I should know how to do photo editing. I shouldn't need to "know" OSX to do Final Cut, I should know how to do video editing. A good OS lets you do the things you really need to do without you thinking about the OS.
Even though you're totally off-topic, I agree with you. A good OS is intuitive. But also stable. Linux totally loses in the intuitive arena, but wins in the stable arena. Windows wins in the hardware and driver support arena.
For example, say I want to setup a static IP in ubuntu. You can't do it with the default network manager. You have to uninstall it and install another. WTF? That's ridiculous.
Windows: All you have to say is BSoD.
Mac OS: Worst error-reporting OS I've ever seen.
Conclusion: All operating systems leave something to be desired.
Now back on topic...
Ballmer is a loon.
Ballmer is doign a great job of running Microsoft into the ground. He is a moron who speaks out of his ass instead of forming logical thoughts then speaking.
Microsoft has more than their 5 versions of Vista. They're also competing against their past operating systems like XP. When you don't bring much to the table in terms of innovation these days its more about selling you the same crap with some slight polish on it. Who knows if Google will build a great new OS. The fact of the matter is Microsoft has been eroding their market share off to Apple for the past few years now, and the transfer over to it seems to be increasing.
Microsoft has more than their 5 versions of Vista. They're also competing against their past operating systems like XP. When you don't bring much to the table in terms of innovation these days its more about selling you the same crap with some slight polish on it. Who knows if Google will build a great new OS. The fact of the matter is Microsoft has been eroding their market share off to Apple for the past few years now, and the transfer over to it seems to be increasing.
Although Apple is gaining market share, you also have to consider people install windows on their Mac as well. Microsoft's loss of market share is not as extreme as you make it seem. Plus, in this economy you have to consider that many people will buy lower cost PCs. Overall, I predict Apple will be losing market share in the future not gaining, especially with the October release of Windows 7.
GNU Linux can do a helluva lot more than any Windows distro.
"but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. It's good to have one."
No wonder he spazzes out so often. The animal's got rabbis. I can see the fall of MS now...
Anyone who says Windows can do more than GNU linux or Windows looks better than linux is damn crazy and don't deserve to live. How can you justify that? Maybe if you don't count all the repositories that gnu linux offers, Windows looks and can do more than linux, but once you count in the repositories, the people who say Windows>Linux are a bunch of people that deserve to die but don't deserve the bullets. With gnu and open bsd, you can virtually do EVERYTHING with linux. Make your own linux and it performs exactly as you programmed it to do, anything you program it to do.
On the otherhand, Windows won't let you modify the code (legally).
Justify your stance that Windows can do more than the al mighty gnu Linux, you animals!
All the versions of Windows Vista share the same kernel, correct? All the versions of Windows 7 share the same kernel, correct? How much did MS change the kernel between Vista and Win7? I don't know the answer to this. All this lead me to believe that Vista is one OS and Windows 7 is one OS, and maybe Win7 is just Vista2 (or 1.5). So assuming there hasn't been a drastic change in the kernels, Win7 and Vista are actually one OS.
Think of it as movie with a DVD theatrical release, BR release, a directors cut, and a big box set with all the extras; the underlying story is the same in all versions.
Do we think that Chrome OS and Android will share the same kernel. If they do, then what Google has is one OS. If not, two...
I don't know how some of you people managed to work out a windows vs linux debate from this article talking about Chrome OS.Anyway, Ballmer is awesome at putting his foot in his mouth. Google is not allowed to have more than one OS all because they don't share a common name like "Windows"? That's ridiculous. Microsoft has 5 versions of Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate. What does he have to say about that? Haha, this guy cracks me up.
Chrome OS is suppose to run linux kernel so the debates seems valid
Hey man google is going FTW on this one. Android for super small fast OS , and google chrome for the power.
"but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. It's good to have one."
No wonder he spazzes out so often. The animal's got rabbis. I can see the fall of MS now...
Anyone who says Windows can do more than GNU linux or Windows looks better than linux is damn crazy and don't deserve to live. How can you justify that? Maybe if you don't count all the repositories that gnu linux offers, Windows looks and can do more than linux, but once you count in the repositories, the people who say Windows>Linux are a bunch of people that deserve to die but don't deserve the bullets. With gnu and open bsd, you can virtually do EVERYTHING with linux. Make your own linux and it performs exactly as you programmed it to do, anything you program it to do.
On the otherhand, Windows won't let you modify the code (legally).
Justify your stance that Windows can do more than the al mighty gnu Linux, you animals!
Windows surpasses linux in the user friendly department, 95% of the people that use computers are morons, they don't know and are not willing to learn to use an os like linux, it is so much easier for them to just install itunes to hook up their ipod and install software for their all in one HP and new laser mouse.
Let say some of them learn a thing or two about computer hardware and want to install a new graphics card in their computer.
Linus is awesome if you are well learned in the OS but for the 95% of the ignorant computer users out there its a piece.
Linux can do far more than Windows... The massively hot-key-able 3d compiz type desktop effects, the multiple desktops/taskbars/shelves and the vast number of gadgets/widgets/plasmoids that are available, and the many add-ons and various applications through the package managers... The advanced(in general) PC user can do far, far more with Linux than Windoze, after the initial learning period. The more basic user can use it just as well as Windows.
Windows is quite stable, but Linux is more so, BSODs are entirely unnecessary 99% of the time, I'm not sure if Linux even has a BSOD or hard-reboot functionality built in, because I've never seen it. Driver support for Linux is not bad, they can hack out an unsupported driver for Linux faster than the hardware vendors can write and validate an official driver for Vista.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. You shouldn't have to know how to use an OS, you should know how to use the software you need. I shouldn't need to "know" Windows to do Photoshop, I should know how to do photo editing. I shouldn't need to "know" OSX to do Final Cut, I should know how to do video editing. A good OS lets you do the things you really need to do without you thinking about the OS.
Should be could be... yes
But saying you can do more with one OS then another simply because you don't know how to use an OS is incorrect. If you want intuitive then you should be using OSx anyways, if you want intuitive with some more customizations the use windows.
I just don't like the studpid picture of him (Steve Ballmer).
Does anyone remember when Ballmer said the iPhone would not sell any units?
And what Linux can do and Windows can't. I can give list of 100s things Linux can't do that i can do under Windows.
Windows can't work quickly.
Arch or Gentoo is wonderfully fast.... blazing compared to Windows. Rhythmbox also beats the living crap out of Windows Media Player- though you can always replace that with WinAmp- which is about as good as Rhythmbox.
Oh, please... I earn my living developing software (J2EE, again no M$, have experience with win32 and a bit of *nix), and I don't buy the "usability" crap (being terrified by Vista), but:
1) There is plenty of software, that runs only on Windows. (yes, I know about ?? year old "Wine" project). Most "Linux only" software is easily or with some effort ported to Win. Try to port stuff using activeX/directX to vista
2) Please provide one bloody reasonable example of what Linux can do that Windows can not.
Does anyone remember when Ballmer said the iPhone would not sell any units?
Yes, and I remember when they said:
- Zune would be a success
- Vista was better than XP
The thing that troubles me about Ballmer more than his kookyness is that he is the CEO of the biggest computer software firm in the world, and he is poking fun that Google has/will have Android/Chrome OS.
Last I saw, Windows has 4+ flavors of Vista?
If one OS is enough, then why does Ballmer's corp need 6?
The guy is plain stupid. He is not intelligent enough technically to speak on his own product. At least Gates knew what the hell he was talking about and kept informed.
Ballmer needs to go back to business development and sales, and giving pep speeches at sales conferences.
Please provide one bloody reasonable example of what Linux can do that Windows can not.
First of all, who cares? If you like windows, use windows. If someone else likes Linux, let them use linux. It's all a matter of preference anyway.
Linux is very stable, very customizable and very free. It has a rough learning curve -- hard to start, hard to get good at. Decent driver support if you know where to look.
Windows is moderately stable, difficult to really customize and very expensive. It has a nice learning curve -- easy to start, easy to get good at. Tons of software and driver support. Huge gaming community.
OS X is linux with a better learning curve. Except it's less stable, provides almost no error reporting and expensive as hell once you include the price of hardware. It has little driver support for 3rd party hardware.
So, if you are a software developer, then you know the principle that any Turing-complete machine can do anything any other Turing-complete machine can do. Therefore, your question makes no sense. Every major operating system can do everything every other major operating system can do. It just comes down to how you prefer it, and where the software is for doing it and how much it costs.
Should be could be... yesBut saying you can do more with one OS then another simply because you don't know how to use an OS is incorrect. If you want intuitive then you should be using OSx anyways, if you want intuitive with some more customizations the use windows.
Again, it's the opposite. Let's take for example some Average Joe who has never used a computer. Which is neither you nor me. With which system will he be able to do some basic tasks (e-mail, instant messenging, photo editing, etc.) more easily? I know some recent Linux distros are way more user-friendly than they used to be, but you'll have to admit that these things are way easier to do with Windows. Don't get me wrong, I love every OS for what they have to offer, but nothing beats the compatibility and easiness of Windows, even if it's the same compatibility and easiness that causes it's weaknesses (vulnerability to viruses, instability).
Anyway, to get back on track, I think Ballmer is aiming for the Foot In Mouth Award.
I would just like to formally apologize for apperantly starting a windows vs. linux and just what is OS-X debate. I merely wanted to show that Balmer is a little off when saying "you don't need two client operating systems." Most geeks I know of are always running at least two no matter the flavor.
freak77power: If you think there are "100s" of things you can do under Windows but not Linux, you've just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about Linux. All of the basic user needs(audio/video/office/email/web/files) are covered easily and very well, many Windows apps run just fine under WINE(especially if you install the Windows version of the Mono framework and maybe Winedoors), only people with very specific niche needs that involve apps that WINE can't run(hardcore gamers kind of fall in this category, although winedoors can install directx, so maybe that's changing), and that does not amount to 100s of different things....