Actually, Microsoft are pretty worried that they announced this. It now means there is another competitor in the OS market, and of all companies, Google can really make a dent in Microsoft if they do it right, and they know this too. Yes, Ballmer was acting all toughman on the stage when asked about it, but at least Gates had a decent opinion on it. (really dislike Steve Ballmer)
Stemming off from what Bill says, it is the fact that nobody quite knows just what to expect from the system at the current time that is the main concern to them. This new OS could end up being one of the best things ever, and it could very well kill a lot of the attraction to Windows if done correctly. These unexpected variables in are always a worrying thing... outside of random generators that is ;) (but our pseudo-random generators we have now are fairly decent with all the hardware inputs like temperature, read/write speeds, etc.) Microsoft tried to hold back the web by deliberately buckling their browser for years and forcing so many people down the ActiveX route. Now all they can do is try to hold on to as many of their users as possible since they no longer have this kind of control. Sadly (for them), IE7 and IE8 are actually pretty bad compared to everything else out there, especially Firefox with add-ons. (and soon, Chrome) Their Office "live" suite they just announced looks like it would just push a good bunch of people away, especially with all that Sharepoint nonsense. (IMO) Yep, they don't seem to be doing a good job with this one. I really hope Chrome OS makes Microsoft think twice about their (quite silly) decisions. But the chances of that happening are unlikely... Ever since Vista happened, Microsoft have just went downhill. (not just my opinion, fact-based too) On Jul 17, 1:19 pm, The Flavored Coffee Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > Microsoft isn't worried about it. But, I do know they could. Most > people are trying to control their computers. I always am. I don't > use Linux for one reason. I wind up with several desktops, all of > which can be customized. Then there's YAST, and it isn't so confusing > as it seems to be confused. Linux is or could be good base. But, > basically, viruses and spyware are by far too much of a problem. Then > there's competing with performance. > > Microsoft messed up by following a leader somewhere that probably was > a genius, or even is one. But, Guru's don't work. In order for an > Operating System to be one, it has be organized. You don't want to > leave any of that too the machine. Just like a buildings, we built > them completely of stone and found limits to how high we could build > them. We include structure and design rules, and it get harder to > mess with the system. > > For Google Chrome to beat and defeat Microsoft, I can think of a few > design rules that will help keep programs virus free. The number of > drivers is and must be limited by the hardware connected to your > machine. There is only one exception, motherboard chip sets. In any > case, all chips are made with an internal serial number and by law > these have to be different. If your operating system activates a > program to add a signature or sign your driver, it should be signed > with an encrypted version of the hardware's serial number. Drivers > run in the background, and users don't often see them. > > Software design rules for applications etc. No programs can be > written or run without User Controls except when the operating system > is set into "programming mode". There is a simple process of > designing Compilers with thier Evil Twins, the Decompilers. We have > far less useful commands in the high level language, and far fewer > useful commands and functions derived from assembly language than > viruses, spyware, or malware. The enemy keeps writing more programs. > But, we can say that you must have a user interface for every program, > or it will not run. It must have an icon that will grant you access > to the control panel if it is a driver. These simple design rules, > then can be checked in code when decompiled. It would be allot like > spell checking/syntax checking but carried up a notch and beyond that > to grammar checking/program rule checking. This means that the > compiler will tell you that there is an error in your program because, > the operating system will reject it after it has been checked by a > decompiler before it is allowed to run on the machines that are not in > program mode. There would be an assembly language macro registry, > where you put your open source decompiled assembly language macros so > that the decompiler can be updated online, or offline, to allow the > Operating System to sign checked programs, and keep a list of checked > programs with time and date stamps. > > User access points include mouse, keyboard, joystick and the list of > known inputs, microphones, touch screens. But, all must obey. Why? > It makes the life of a virus hard to create. Our decompiler can't > figure out an assembly language macro, won't run it except in > programmer's mode. Operating System rule, decompile all software from > all removable media and/or communcation ports. > > Even with this, Microsoft will have no fear. When your running a Linux > based system, there's another problem. It's like a junk heap of > software you can't use, or that you're just not interested in. Why > does anyone need 4, 5 or 6 versions of spread sheets, scientific > graphing? They don't. We need an online installer system, and a > basic CD or DVD for new systems that anyone can burn. It's designed > with a web browser, and as many drivers for wireless, eithernet, and > even 56K modems and DSL all of the basic internet connections. Then > it takes you to the second stage installer. You go through a bunch of > web pages, like a store, view screen shots, capabilities, system > requirements, and select the software that circumscribes your personal > interests and hobbies. If it's music, why do you need scientific > software? You don't. If it's engineering, you might the scientific > software. Maybe, you like simulations, or games. Doesn't matter, the > machine doesn't need to be junk heaped with software you know you'll > never use. It only makes it that much more confusing when you go to > solve a problem that goes with software conflicts, that may or may not > be a result of an installer changing settings. If you think about it, > it's like buying one of everything just to go fishing. The world is a > very big place, and not many guys want to wear kilts when they go > fishing. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
