The Windows killer -- Google OS

PC Magazine columnist, John C. Dvorak, wrote up an interesting column earlier this week explaining exactly how Google would get into the operating system business to take on Microsoft and Apple. And while I too believe Google may make such a move, John only got us to the point of inception.

And with most of the OS focus this week being allocated to Mac OS X Leopard, I thought it would be nice to take our attention away from that for a moment, and take a look at what the hypothetical Google OS would look like after the company declares war on Microsoft.

And if you're thinking what I'm thinking, this OS would take Windows (and Mac OS X) for a ride.

First off, everyone knows that Google has an endless flow of cash at its disposal that effectively allows it to wipe out any and all competitors at the drop of a hat. And because of this huge sum of capital, it can afford to do things that Apple and Microsoft don't want to do -- offer an operating system for free.

That's right, the Google OS will retail for a low, low price of nothing. And how will it support itself you ask? Through advertising, of course!

Google is the de facto leader in everything advertising. Even better, this company has always been known as the free, "nice" company that won't do the "evil" things we have come to expect from huge tech companies. And it makes sense: why would Google want to sell its own OS? It would be entering a market with zero market share and would need to find a way to break in. Free would be a great place to start.

Now, besides the price, be aware that this operating system will probably be the most updated OS you have ever used. Once again, that is for one reason: advertising. Ads will be strategically placed on the startup screen and your desktop, as well as on the Google browser that will come pre-loaded with the OS. Ads will be practically everywhere, but for some odd reason, you won't really notice them. As we all know, Google has been quite successful at making advertisements become a part of the Web, and there's no reason to suggest it can't do the same with the operating system.

Now, what would a good Google OS be without its main attribute -- open source? For the first time, Google will lead the open source charge against Windows. And if you're a fan of Linux, you should be happy about this: Google can protect itself against Microsoft's high-paid lawyers and will act as the shield the Linux community needs to fend off any and all attacks from the Microsoft camp. In effect, all of Microsoft's focus will be put squarely on Google, which will allow the Ubuntus and SUSEs of the world to roam freely in the shadows.

The design of this new OS will be simple, yet elegant. Much like the Google homepage, the Google OS will be intuitive and easy to use. There will not be a Start button or a useless set of bloatware that only contributes to slower speeds. This new operating system will be quick and nimble -- ready to perform the operation you ask of it in a matter of seconds.

Even better, you won't need to buy expensive equipment just to use it and if you're really lucky, it won't be subject to security issues because the company spent extra time making sure the possibility of exploitation is practically nil.

The new operating system will come pre-loaded with all of Google's software packages, but unlike some Microsoft software, you'll be able to uninstall it whenever you see fit.

There will not be any UAC prompts or the annoying question of "did you mean to do this?" You won't need to fire up anti-spyware and anti-virus programs just to make sure your data is safe. In fact, you might actually be happy using the new OS all day, every day.

Finally, the new Google OS will be easy to use, but contain the functionality necessities expected by an advanced user. In essence, this operating system will be built for everyone.

So there you have it, my idea of what the Google OS could (and should) look like if it every comes to fruition. And if it does, Microsoft may be in for a rude awakening.

[Crash_Lynn]

Good but not Google Enough

I think your future outlook for a Google OS is in the ballpark, but I would like to add a few things. I think Google would create an OS that enables a user to boot to from their computer vice having to worry about distributing software. Users would not have to worry about getting a virus or other nasty programs, all of these tasks would be updated on the OS image file so every time a user logs in he/she will have the latest security patches.

I do worry about Google putting advertisements within the OS, not because they bother me, but I can foresee legal problems for them in the same areas that Microsoft has been troubled with. Of course no one would say anything to them until the competition is wiped out, then we'll see Google being dragged to court because they were not allowing other advertising services the ability to post adverts in their free OS. I know it sounds silly, but when MS gave away a browser they got hammered for that (I know the story behind that but I'm just keeping it short).

I hope to actually see this OS some day and will be very glad to get rid of my Vista 64 bit version as long as advertisements don't pop up while I'm in the middle of playing BF 2142 :)

[sourx]

We Don't Need a Windows Killer

In order to kill Windows you need to kill some things first:

1. Microsoft Office (word, excel, powerpoint)
2. Exchange and Outlook
3. Gaming

If a new GOOG OS came out today that was perfect and it didn't fully support, replace or integrate with the products above - it will not kill Windows.

Office replacements are just not there yet
Companies have invested too much in Exchange to turn back
Gaming on something other than a Windows PC - good luck.

Stop with the Google OS nonsense already until it goes from rumor to reality.

[bewoofy1]

Google, how is ur os set for 'usb to go ?

Friends,

I have no OS bias, but a 'google os' w/o what I saw in .inf files from Microsoft to vendors, would be better for security,but worse for popularity. Since those are not in the pc files, must've been left on by accident.

I can say nothing about unix,Linux, nor to be fair can I say it about Vista. I write what I saw.The .inf file called 'msports' had gobs of drivers from many manufacterers. What caught my attention were those called 'pcmcia' and [no port="pcmcia that looks like com but is not"].Laptops always had pcmcia port for modem. On pcs I have, pcmcia and bluetooth runs off the 'usb controller'.

The high speed usb is 480mb/s, others 12/mbs-max power consumption 500ma.We know @ the 'smart phone' usb capables, a google search shows 'usb to go'. You can read lots on google,see if you see that as just another 'attack vector'.What that shows is pcs with the high speed usb are 'very radio capable'. I was thinking future problems until I saw the file left on the restore cd.

The same .inf referenced drivers containing words: 'radio transmitter,receiver,decoder'. other drivers referenced GPS,GSM. These may be in place, even if not turned on for the same reason that 'high speed usb,usb to go' is on some newer boards. It is demand by the 'consumers' to be able to do everything from a small device without lugging the laptop around.

Will 'google' cave in to popular demand? Or will they not put drivers in the OS, especially 'ring 0', to make us all secure. People want to 'have their cake and eat it too'. When there are so many online dangers,chosing convenience and luxurious 'on the go' stuff is choosing 'freedom/convenience over safety'.

The other choice is 'safety over freedom/convenience'. So the question goes to google and all OS vendors, and also the motherboard vendors. What if I do not want 'radios' on the board in my pc? To deny me the choice to not have 'radios' on my board leaves only one choice, not have a computer.

Putting the info out also gives consumers a chance to decide if they want 'security' rather than board/radios.If the cry is loud enough,some board vendor will respond.We do have os choice, but as consumers we have the right to ask if drivers enabling usb radio are in the os. Linux is open source, so let us see what microsoft, mac, the future 'google os' has to say.

I would caution any VENDORS from being less than upfront. Nearly all os files can be 'cracked open' by a determined 'ethical hacker'. Ring '0' can also be accessed with a few tools. I have the book telling programmers how to do it. Lying and/or being evasive is FUTILE.

I have thrown down the gauntlet. See who picks it up. Watch and see if anyone responds in any of the following ways: a)denial-what you saw is not really on there.[even tho connections with descriptions matching those driver descriptions are in registry] b)village idiot routine-'you do not understand what you saw' c)'what you saw relates to future tech,not yet released'.

Disclaimer- Even if what I saw IS what it looked like now or near future, I am pretty sure that it is legal. It is very unlikely to have malicious intent. My only purpose was to put it out. Then security experts,vendors of boards and OS can check it out. Perhaps they may consider that many corps,banks govt would want a choice.

Don't forget 'we pay them, they do not pay us'.It is a 'buyer's market'.

blu