Bill Gates on Google's Chrome OS
To Bill Gates, Google's Chrome OS looks a lot like a familiar foe: Linux.
"There's many, many forms of Linux operating systems out there and packaged in different ways and booted in different ways," Gates said in an interview with CNET News this week. "In some ways I am surprised people are acting like there's something new. I mean, you've got Android running on Netbooks. It's got a browser in it."
Gates said it was hard to really say much about Chrome OS, since Google has said so little about how it will actually work.
"The more vague they are, the more interesting it is," he said.
As for the notion that the browser needs to act more like an OS, he noted that the browser has already become an extremely broad concept, with all of the plug-ins and other things that are now done inside a browser.
"It just shows the word browser has become a truly meaningless word," Gates said. "What's a browser? What's not a browser? If you're playing a movie, is that a browser or not a browser? If you're doing annotations, is that a browser? If you're editing text, is that a browser or not a browser? In large part, it's more an abuse of terminology than a real change."
Meanwhile, CEO Steve Ballmer suggested on Tuesday that Windows, rather than a browser-centric OS was the right approach. To bolster his argument, Ballmer noted that half of PC use today is spent doing work outside the browser.
"We don't need a new operating system," Ballmer said Tuesday, as part of his keynote at Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans. "What we do need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, IE (Internet Explorer), the way IE works in totality with Windows and how we build applications like Office...and we need to make sure we can bring our customers and partners with us."
Ballmer and Gates also stressed the fact that Google now has two operating systems--Chrome OS and Android. Ballmer noted that Microsoft learned with the separate Windows 95 for consumers and Windows NT for businesses that having two operating systems isn't necessarily a positive thing.
"The last time I checked you don't need two client operating systems," he said. "It's good to have one."
Ballmer and Gates also echoed the note Business Division President Stephen Elop sounded in an interview with CNET News last week--that Microsoft really doesn't know what Chrome OS will look like.
"Who knows what this thing is?" Ballmer said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Listening to Balmer and Gates talk about operating systems is like listening to Nixon and Clinton talk about ethical presidencies.
Perhaps instead you'd like to discuss Apple's OS that they built then junked in favor of an OS with roots in Unix.
Windows 95 was certainly a welcome release on the consumer and SMB side of things. It was more reliable than Windows 3.1, more easier and convenient to use than Program Manager and third party devs loved.
It wasn't about confusion, its about timing and understanding that different needs were in play. Windows 95 and NT were basically the predecessor to the SKU's that you now have in Vista Business and Vista Home Premium. Microsoft realized even back then in 1994 that Windows 9x was not gonna carry the platform into the 21st century, and the realization of that came with the mighty successful release of Windows XP.
I must agree with you. Gates' comments are sensible, Ballmer's are just arrogant and ignorant. ""We don't need a new operating system"? Who's "we"? Ballmer and his cronies?
I don't get how that guy gets to run a multibillion dollar company.
i'm blaming it on gates
Stop talking nonsense will ya?
Going by your theory, every laptop is mobile too, so therefore every OS on a laptop doesn't count, no?
You Microsoft-hating open source crazies never fail to amuse with your inane, mindless statements do you?
This is the diffference: Microsoft doesn't not sell Window Mobile for use on netbooks or latops.
Google is offering BOTH Chrome and Andriod on netbooks. Get it?
@ gomer43 :"I don't get how that guy gets to run a multibillion dollar company. "
Maybe because they happen to know what they are talking about, and you simply don't(going by your post)?
Chrome os is the ONLY move done by google towards netbooks.
IMHO, what Google is doing right now makes a lot of sense.
No one wants to port Windows Mobile to a netbook because it is ***** and barely runs on the platform it was designed for.
"There's many forms of Windows operating systems out there and packaged in different editions" ... "In some ways I am surprised people are acting like there's something new. I mean, you've got XP running on Netbooks. It's got a browser in it."
Show me a netbook that is runnning Window Mobile, then you can talk. There is none!
"In some ways I am surprised people are acting like there's something new. I mean, you've got XP running on Netbooks"
XP and Win 7 are merely version 5 and version 7 of the same operating system, running the same applications, derived from the same operating system code of Windows NT.
The latest version of the same operating suystem is NOT another operating system. You can't run Microsoft Office in Windows Mobile for example, but you can run it on both XP and Win 7.
Correction, Windows 7 is actually Windows NT version 6.1, Vista is 6.0, XP is 5.1 and 2000 is 5.0
How so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Essentially 7 relates to Vista the same way XP relates to 2000.
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS6888938729.html
So Chrome vs Android is EXACTLY like CE versus Windows7.
In fact Chrome/Android are far more similar than CE and Windows7.
You do know that there is a big difference between Windows CE and Window Mobile don't you?
That link of yours is for Windows CE, a completely different operating system from Window Mobile, which is made expressly for smartphones.
Many MS fans do not like the movie because it brakes down the fantasy of Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates being smart and great geeks and turns them to be more thiefs and copiers.
Steve Jobs has laughed about the movie, even it brings lots of sides from him what he would not like to show. When Apple released MacOSX it shown trailer of the movie and the keynote start was done by Noah Wyle acting like Steve Jobs and then later he passed the position to Steve Jobs who came to stage.
Actually, it has a lot to do with reality. Not the whole thing, there some things that Steve Wozniak pointed to be wrong (dates, and such).
I mean, maybe some details are wrong, but look at the big picture; it is real ;-)
@Friiduh: "Many MS fans do not like the movie because it brakes down the fantasy of Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates being smart and great geeks and turns them to be more thiefs and copiers."
True.
When Ballmer tries to trounce Chrome OS and say why Windows is the way to go, etc. it just leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Of course anyone working at Microsoft will tout their own vision/products. But Gates (without praising Google) offers a kinder, gentler view- something interesting to notice.
Sad to see that a lot of P.R. comes from Ballmer instead of Gates, whom most have a more favorable opinion of.
@t8: No way Gates was responsible for the anti-competitive behavior. He was the big-picture guy, Ballmer was/is the get-my-hands-dirty used-car salesman that's ruined the company. Pure sleaze.
Is that why Microsoft managed to hit a market cap of a staggering $500 billion when Gates was still in charge, as compared to just over $200 billion today?
And wasn't Penfield Jackson's stupid decision to split Microsoft THROWN out by the full compliment of the Appeal's Court(all 7 judges), because Penfield Jackson showed rabid bias, utter and complete disregard for the rule of law, and due process, by discussing the case with some journalists even while the trial was still going on?
And was the case not suibsequently TAKEN WAY from Penfield Jackson by the Appeals Court?
And is Penfield Jackson not a disgraced, discredit judge today even as we speak?
He is arrogant, to say "why have two OS's" when Vista all itself has 5. I
Microsoft does not listen to the consumer, Google does listen and pretty closely.
I am still skeptical on Google OS being all web based, it just doesn't seem safe anymore.
When you deal with Cloud Computing you have to have virtual servers and virtual machines for the OS.
Before that they just used Java or Javascript and Microsoft used VBScript and ActiveX controls.
This is what I think is going to happen, Google will release the OS...it'll slowly catch on(probably 2 years before people understand what it is or what it means) . Seeing their numbers slightly slip, Windows will rush out an OS with the same theory and epically fail at it; everybody will buy the windows version, because you can't spell computer without Windows(Oh wait, yeah you can...why are we all stuck using windows?), and then you will hear nothing but complaints about how bad their windows machine works...I'm still trying to clean the Vista whining out of my ears...
Oye, the joy to look forward too...
I'm assuming they said the same thing when Google said "We want to put an office suite on the web so it's accessible anywhere and can be shared with anyone", "
What market share does Google Docs have today?
And what market share does Microsoft Office have?
And who is making by far more money, Googe Docs or Microsoft Office?
I don't know how you got "Google is better" out of my comment...All I said is "Microsoft says its no big deal now, but they won't continue to think that tomorrow." It's just the way Microsoft does things
# 1. Google Docs is as "free" as watching netwrok TV is free. They swamp you with unwanted advertisements all the time
# 2. No company on the planet, loves money more than Google. That's all they care about. For you to even come up with this ridiculous "Google don't care if they make money", is the biggest joke I have heard all week.
Do you even read what I say? Its like your brain can only process my first sentence of my comment and can't possible come up with something to contradict me, and basically reiterate what I just said. I said they don't care about making money off the service(as in the product itself), just as long as they can pump advertisement juice all over your documents . Google's money making theory's are all based on keeping people on the internet, and since that's starting to become the general trend now, it doesn't surprise me that Microsoft is shaking in their boots. We may not all like it...but cloud computing is going to be the next thing with computers(It may just be a fad, but the market is heading that way...especially with Chrome OS on the way)
Microsoft may continuously defend why a desktop unit is better than a cloud terminal, but its hard to deny that if this settles even slightly, Microsoft will release an OS to directly compete with Chrome. I honestly think Microsoft needs to start using the fact that you are putting your personal information into the cloud, because this is honestly the only scary part(and the only downside I can find) about cloud computing. Instead they are saying "we have word...well and Internet Explorer....it would be stupid to switch". Like seriously? It just sounds dumb.
Since Google believes in the cloud so much why aren't they running their business on the cloud like they are preaching? Becasue they are spreading rhetoric and not delivering in their own organization?
"Ballmer noted that Microsoft learned with the separate Windows 95 for consumers and Windows NT for businesses that having two operating systems isn't necessarily a positive thing."
Doesn't windows currently have more then one client OS and a server OS? There is Windows Mobile, Windows XP for netbooks, and Vista (soon to be Windows 7), as well as Server. If they in fact learned their lesson then why are they currently distributing 4 OSes? On top of that Microsoft is also working on a cloud based OS, Azure and the OS for the Xbox.
It seems as though they haven't in fact learned their lesson.
I would actually like to hear more from Google about what the Chrome OS is supposed to do other then to say that it rethinks the OS.
That's right. You keep your money burning, I keep my old OS and Office running.
This reminds me of when Ballmer called upon Apple to make iPhone OS available to be used by resellers like Android and WM, then promptly tied all the major phone manufacturers into exclusives with them, leaving Android with ZERO models at the Expo in Barcelona.
To be fair, Gates is a visionary and obviously an innovative thinker, regardless of the origins of his OS, but Ballmer is just an embarrassment to Microsoft. I've no doubt he would be extremely valuable to the company in another role, but as their figurehead, he just rubs non-MS zealots up the wrong way.
But then again, maybe he's right. Perhaps the computer market is better run without competition for Windows. That way, we may all get a little more fresh air.
Now why don't you show me where Window Mobile is running on any netbook?
Windows Mobile doesn't run on netboks because
# 1. It wasn't designed for netbooks
And # 2. Microsoft does NOT sell Windows Mobile to netbook manufacturers. Microsoft has been selling Windows XP to netbook manufacturers, after which XP proceeded to totally destroy Linux from the netbooks market, by grabbing over 90% of the netbooks OS business.
Hail to M$ Windows lol
Linux distros and make one OS well and create it to be fast and secure
from the begining instead of making it an after thought as MS does.
- by dbloyd July 15, 2009 7:28 AM PDT
- It is simple. Android is following the iPhone model that allows local applications and local data mixed with web applications. Chrome will be more of a pure web solution with just enough Linux to make that happen. If your computer gets stolen or breaks, no problem because all your settings and data is safe in the cloud.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (123 Comments)They cover different needs but I can see them merged into a single OS eventually.