Google PC to Hit Walmart?

Fahrvergnuugen writes "According to latimes.com Google is set to launch the Google PC which will run Google's own operating system. From the article: 'Sources say Google has been in negotiations with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among other retailers, to sell a Google PC. The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap -- perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars.'"

For non-Article readers...

This is a piece of speculation that's inside a piece of gossip that's inside a bloody "Predictions for 2006" article.

Which isn't to say that it can't be true. But it feels like someone heard the phrase "Google OS" [kottke.org] and made up a rumor without knowing what the phrase meant.

Re:For non-Article readers...

My favorite line from the article: "Google will unveil its own low-price personal computer or other device that connects to the Internet." If these "sources" are so close to the investigation, how can they not even know whether or not the device is a PC?!
Also, the mention of a "google box" that will move music and video between the PC and TV seems like it really came out of left field....

Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

While I certainly want to believe that there is room for other operating systems, and I'm even certain that Microsoft's Windows is NOT the ultimate and perfect answer to how computers should be used, this article doesn't deserve to be on the /. front page. Actually, the detail about Walmart is the kind of thing that is often added to a bogosity to make it seem more plausible.

It would be nice if someone could give Microsoft a real run for the money and break up that unnecessary and damaging monopoly. However, I don't think this is the time, and Google isn't strong enough to do it, either. Therefore, they'd be foolish to attack without the ability to win.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

This is goofball Googlemania nonsense. There are serious copyright hurdles to this idea - just as legislation in this arena becomes ever more restrictive - to name but the first problem that presents itself on first blush. Also, the second someone buys their $199 Wal*Mart, 'Google PC' and it does not run their 4-year-old daughter's "Blue's Clues" and "Dora" CD-ROMs, it goes back - just like the LinSpire boxes did.

There are more people in MS who are under the spell of Google, than even these 'analysts': Look at Robert Scoble and Dare Obasanjo - tho' the latter seems to actually understand market sense. These ideas float out, with a hope of provoking an MS response that ends up diffusing effort.

Remember, Bear-Stearns and other investment analysts were the most gullible of the participants in dot-com hype. I was a "fly on the wall" in analyst's calls at Bear Stearns, at Reynolds and at Deloitte. They all smoked the same crack that MCI was pushing about 'Net expansion.

At investment and professional services firms, you have a crew of youngsters who cut their professional teeth on the Internet bubble. This is the baseline for their experience. They are now all out to find the next big thing - and they hope it's Google. Like Yahoo in '97, with profitability as the latest 'secret sauce'.

From monitoring this thread, you would think that Google posed as serious a challenge to Microsoft as AMD does to Intel in the microprocessor market.

It's B.S. Google is good at what they do and are looking to create the kind of continuing growth that justifies the absurd valuation the analysts have bestowed upon them. The only real concern for Microsoft is that the natural area for Google's expansion is a segment that we have also identified for growth.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

Actually, as poor a description as "moving videos between a PC and a TV set" is, it is actually a great idea for something like this. Nobody is ever going to be able to market a PC with a non-windows OS for the reason you mentioned - (almost) everything on the market requires Windows. However, by offering what is essentially a fully-functioning PC with say, Linux, but not positioning it as a PC, it would better have the ability to get into people's homes.

By not positioning it as a replacement for a Windows PC, but as an additional accessory, it doesn't have to replace every esoteric piece of software available for Windows. However, if these devices become popular for their own specific "purpose", and have the ability to duplicate at least a large portion of the functionality of a Windows PC, the apps will fall into place as people demand them.

I think an important part of this equation is HDTV. The display's ability to offer a reasonably useful "computer" interface simply wasn't available with NTSC. Now, a box connected to an HDTV display, with a one piece wireless keyboard/trackball interface, could be a lot more palatable to people, than say the old WebTV.

Hopefully they won't screw it up like everyone else has.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

I like the additional accessory angle. That could acutally work if a Google PC can target and overcome the weaknesses in the current iterations of Windows. XP Media Center is nice, but it's only been around for a year or two. People are holding onto machines a lot longer than they used to. Also, Media Center is usually only available on upper tier units. If Google can put a $200 PC out there that's good at DVR functions, can play videos from different sources, and can do some general PC functions, it could be a viable system. Especially if it played nice with the other computer at home by way of file sharing.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

Go into a Walmart, they have normally priced desktop computers there (500-700$, usually HP's) and laptops similarly slightly higher. They also have TVs that cost more than that, and they sell them,too. Go out in the parking lot and look at the cars there, it's not all 15 year old junkers. You might have a biased viewpoint about who shops at walmart. At my local one, one of the few places that have computers around here (rural area), you can see everything from 45,000$ pickups in the lot to Priuses the the latest high end Japanese rice rockets like Lexuses and Infinitys.

I think you have a case of urban elitism. while you weren't looking, computers have gone mainstream, because they just aren't that hard to deal with, either operating them or building them. it's a ho-hum skill now as in nothing special. Walmart even sells some upgrade parts on the shelf, meaning that people are savvy enough to open the box and replace components. Oh and Noes, being a computer user means you don't have to be a white collar urban dweller any longer.

This is 2006, not 1986 after all. Being a computer user by itself is no longer automatically leet, it's become as common as can be. It's a normal human endeavor, walmart sells whatever sells, that's all. Just because you (anyone you, just generally speasking) might shop at an all electronic store does not make you any more intelligent or capable that someone who shops at a walmart. You go where the deals are in todays world, end of story. I personally don't like walmart from a socio/economic model, but I won't deny that they carry a wide range of products at various pricing levels, and cater to most of the consumer population out there. Probably over 90% of people who shop will hit a walmart at least once in awhile, street people to millionaires.

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

This is why I left /. for digg.
Yet here you are...

Re:Google an accessory to Walmart's evil?

Would you please quit it with throwing 1984 references everywhere? This is a discussion about getting non-Microsoft PCs into the home (and if anything's good for freedom, it's that) - not about tracking anything. This isn't going to make anything wiretappable that wasn't wiretappable before. If you haven't noticed, your cable box is two-way, so if they want they can track what you're viewing. And if the US wanted, they could rootkit your computer. What does connecting the computer and the TV allow them to tap (of any relevance - not like they need to tap someone's TV to get the Lord of the Rings movies for free)? All your personal info is on your computer.

Winston Smith's TV was worrisome because it contained a camera - an active monitoring device - as opposed to a wiretap - a passive monitoring device, which only forwards what goes through the wire. This doesn't contain a camera, and there's no logic in saying it couldn't be turned off.

Would you hold back technology in the worry it could be used for evil ends? Everything can be perverted. Even the clubs that the cavemen used, the first tools in human society, could have been used to kill other humans.

You should be glad you weren't around to say "zomg Big Brother!" when DARPA was proposing the Internet. Because today, you're posting on it, even though your posts are being tracked.

Re:Google branded Windows?

Win$hit? Dude, at least "winblows" rhymes with "Windows". And that dollar sign is just too much... using it to imply that "Micro$oft" is greedy is fine, but combining it with "shit" and tacking it onto the end of "Win" is really reaching.

You need to work harder on your Microsoft bashing.

Gee, where have you been? "Win$hit" is perfectly acceptable - google says so. 48,100,000 hits for "Win$hit".

Or you can http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=win%24hit&word2=winblows [googlefight.com] googlefight

Win$hit - 82,700,000
Winblows - 296,000

That's several hundred to 1 in favour of Win$hit.

It's not a bug - its a feature :-)

Re:Google branded Windows?

You might want to learn how Google works. Punctuation and most non-text characters are discarded. That means your "win$hit" query is actually two words, "win" + "hit". Nothing to do with windows at all.

A few random Google OS links...

Information regarding the OS is sketchy (read: rumours), so here's some (non-authorative) links:

• What Wold Microsoft Do (Editor's Blog) [softpedia.com]
• A Google OS by 2010 (Article) [osnews.com]
• GooOS (Blog) [kottke.org]
• The new 'G' o/s (Article) [rankforsales.com]

I'm not so sure about the name 'GooOS' that people are chosing to use. The domain GOOOS.COM is registerd to [enom.com] whoisprivacyprotect.com [whoisprivacyprotect.com] (a subsidiary of Enom [enom.com]), but the CC domains like gooos.co.uk are not yet registered (which seems like a bit of a mistake if thats the name google intend (read:speculation) to use.)

Low cost?

Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC. So just using their own OS (with all the development costs) isn't going to save a huge amount of money per unit sold.

Re:Low cost?

Windows XP is quite expensive from the OEM's. For example this supplier [chiligreen.at] sells PCs with Windows and Linux. The Linux ones are 82 Euros (about $100) cheaper.

Given that you can buy PCs for $350, this is about 1/3 of the price.

Re:Low cost?

Well the cost of customers having viruses and spyware maybe but not the license :-)

Some of the time thats the fault of the OEM's. Some even come with (spy|crap)ware out of the box ffs. A friend of mine recently bought a cheap OEM machine which had SP2 installed just fine, but not a single hotfix since. Spybot S&D found several (albeit minor) issues straight away.

Worse still is most OEM's give you a rubbish recovery disc that restores this poor condition, with no Windows disc to be found. (I always use Magic Jelly Bean's keyfinder [magicaljellybean.com], to find the CDKEY used by the OEM, and burn off an XP OEM disc myself, with SP2 and all the post-SP2 hotfixes slipsteamed using nLite [nliteos.com]. For my friend I also made his disc as unattended as possible and included some useful batch files and drivers)

If you want to avoid the second issue you mentioned you have to goto a small time box builder that'll give you a quality installation, unfortunately I suspect you're going to get hit with the real cost of the Windows license.

Re:Low cost?

Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC.

The lower the cost of the PC the higher the proportion of the cost is the OS.

So just using their own OS (with all the development costs) isn't going to save a huge amount of money per unit sold.

It's not nothing either. Dollars matter in high volume products.

Plus the strategic advantage of not adding to the revenue stream of a major competitor.

---

Are you thinking long term? Just because a TCO may be good in the short term doesn't mean it's good in the long term.

Re:Low cost?

Really, a Windows licence isn't the major part of the cost of a new PC

Really? In an industry where saving 2% can mean the difference between life and death? I think the MS tax is going to be a minimum 5% (and an obscene maximum if you fail to negotiate a good deal)

OEMs get the best license they can negotiate - it might be good if you're Dell - and don't compete in any space MS wants to own, but I doubt google is going to get the same deal from MS are they?

Re:Low cost?

The cost is offset somewhat by the strange fact that 95% of PC's won't sell until you install Windows on them. A small margin is better than no margin at all.

Re:Low cost?

I doubt google is going to get the same deal from MS are they?

It is an interesting question. If the alternative is Google coming up with a competitive OS, Google might be offered a very sweet deal.

Those thinking an alternative OS from Google is impracticable because of the current MS dominance are, I think, misunderstanding what Google is likely to offer. The target (at least initially) is not going to be businesses with a huge prior investment in applications needing 100% MS compatibility. I believe they will target the consumer, with a PC that ties the Internet cleanly with other consumer devices (TV, stereo, MP3 player). They could do this with a device that was difficult to hack because the PC itself was deliberately limited. Files and applications would reside on Google's servers as far as possible, with a browser type interface. I think this is a logical move for Google, to beat Apple to the punch.

Misleading

This Slashdot summery makes it sound like this is a sure thing. It is only a rumor at this point. Here is a quote from the article

"Here are some predictions for the media industry for 2006, based on interviews with industry analysts, executives and investors, along with a little intuition."

Re:Misleading

For the sake of his office furniture, let's hope Steve Ballmer realises it's only a rumour...

Microsoft Bob

In other news, the Google PC will replace all of Wal Mart's PC's that ship with Microsoft BOB...

Probably Tweaked Linux or FreeBSD

Google just needs to tweak a common free OS to be friendly to all their little sub-projects, in a manner similar to but more extensive than how Opera (the browser) now defaults to Google search. Even that will panic the drones at Microsoft, who are paranoid about Google anyway.

Google this, Google that!

It is a rumor on the LA Times site, which I think is less 'rumor' than most tech sites...

===

I expect this Google OS and PC both will be released in permanent beta, like the rest of their products.

Re:Google this, Google that!

The google pc MUST come with an "I'm Feeling Lucky" button somewhere on the keyboard or I'm not getting one.

Irrensponsible Tabloid Journalism on Slashdot?

You see, the subject matter of my post is not a sensationalistic troll because of the trailing question mark.

Or so goes the "logic."

I might be more interested in a portable device.

Maps integrated with yellow pages and craiglist, with pretty pictures and IM....ect..
I might pay a nice price for a google handheld.

Call up the telco's, "This is Google. We are going to start a blackberry startup.
Give our customers access where ever they are, and we will reward you with lots of cash."

Re:What's next?

They won't make a clippy. We've already got slashdot members providing questions nobody wants answered, then answering them incorrectly.

Name?

What OS will it run? GNU of course! - Google's Not Unix.

Re:Name?

GNUgle?

Business with Walmart?

Do no evil one day, in league with the devil the next.

can it really be that cheap????!?!?!?

The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap -- perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars.'"

Um, has anybody else ever seen a PC? They already sell for as little as a couple of hundred dollars.

Google teaming with Wal-Mart?

I thought their motto was "Do no evil"?

Oh no!

Steve Ballmer is going to be throwing chairs again...

Great way to get the same reputation as MS

Wal-Mart Bad, Google Good... oh dear, isn't it getting complicated!

Apart from that, I think Google would be mad to go the PC route. For a start, the money was never in the hardware. Also, I can't think of a better way to lose goodwill than to start selling budget PCs to the least technically literate segment of the PC-buying population and then failing to provide premium support.

Yes yes, there's Apple, but Apple don't generally do bargain basement prices. If you make an enormous margin on the hardware, you may be able to afford to keep your customers happy, even when they are clueless idiots. No-one, not even Google, will be able to do that on a $200 sale price.

Sun Microsystem will deliver the OS for them.

I think the whole deal the made few months ago was just about this. Google will rebrand Solaris 10 as their OS and will bundle Staroffice with it!

Google is going after the only two Microsoft cash cows: Windows and MS Office...

The only problem I foresee is that Google does not have any capabilities on handling customer support...

well neither has Microsoft...I guess they are even!

I just cannot see this happening

Margins on hardware are *thin*. There is no reason why Google would want to enter that market. OS maybe, turn-key systems? Nah.

Why go with Walmart?

Assuming this is true (keeping in mind the article is based on predictions and intuition) why would a tech savvy company partner with Walmart? I would have thought that if google decide to sell desktops they would follow the Dell model of selling their own customisable machines through their own website.

Imagine the sales they could generate if the first paid text link that appeared whenever you googled something like "new pc" or "pc prices" was for google's own offering? I accept that Walmart have an incredible distribution system, but since Google's business model is already so profitable, why hand margin over to old fashioned bricks and mortar retailers.

My two cents.

Speculation, but an interesting thought

Would people buy a $200 computer that doesn't run Windows, if it carried the Google Brand?

I, personally doubt it.

Would they buy a GoogleBox, that allows them to access their web mail, google office (assuming its not a myth) and various web sites "without a computer", and all they have to do is hook it up to a DSL/Cable line and a power line? I think they would.

My sister is terrified of computers. Her husband finally bought one and within a day they were swamped with the usual microsoft web experience (malware and viruses). All they want their computer for is email, online banking, storing digital photos and getting cheap flights. They don't word process, because neither of them do any work at home (nurse/buyer). Now they have a 64bit Athalon gathering dust in the corner of their office (i didn't recommend it... i know its a waste).

A GoogleBox could really solve their problems, and $200 is a good price point. To really take off it needs to:

• Not look like a computer - think Mac Mini (for use with a TV) or tablet
• Be nothing else than a reasonable harddisk (for local caching of photos and email) and a fanless processor with 256MB RAM
• be built into a 15" touchscreen LCD. If my sister can connect her Nintedo DS to my network using nothing but a touchscreen, we're getting somewhere.
• Include solitare or another equally time wasting mini-game
• Not use the words: computer, network, PC, homework anywhere near it. Instead say: web point, research, email and internet.

Basically, think PDA but without PIM, and make it abundantly clear that this thing lives on the coffee table/kitchen sideboard, not in the brief case, on the train/plane or in the office so that the dim witts at PC World don't start comparing it PDAs/Laptops. If its going to be compared to anything it should be web service built into some cable set-top boxes and look terrible at NTSC resolutions. There could really be a market.
 

Re:Speculation, but an interesting thought

Would they buy a GoogleBox, that allows them to access their web mail, google office (assuming its not a myth) and various web sites "without a computer", and all they have to do is hook it up to a DSL/Cable line and a power line?

Sure, just like they bought all those "internet appliances" and "web terminals" which were supposed to be the next big thing a few years ago and now go for peanuts on eBay [ebay.com].

No leaks?

If it WAS true (and not a rumor) it would have also been the "first ever" software package ever to be put to market without ANY of the development staff OR beta testers leaking a copy.

Has much as I love my geek brethren... I was in disbelief before I even clicked the article.

Re:No leaks?

If it WAS true (and not a rumor) it would have also been the "first ever" software package ever to be put to market without ANY of the development staff OR beta testers leaking a copy.

Umm... if the Google box is a thin client, there's not going to be a "software package" to leak. It'd probably be running a small footprint version of a highly customized Firefox browser over a streamlined linux kernal. And I suspect that no one would find anything interesting about a leaked copy of Firefox.

Honestly, people are missing the boat here. In a web-centric world, the OS becomes relatively trivial, more like a display and interface driver system. If everything "in the machine" is stored on Google servers, and the "software" is little more than pages served from a host you don't need much on the client end -- a single set of display and video drivers (all of the Google cubes will be the same) and something to drive the interface ports. No more.

The article is misleading

Reading down it suddenly turns from rumor investigation into a prediction article for what will happen in the "new" economy in 2006. Most of wich I got absolutly no clue whatsoever about so it makes it hard to judge the various predictions.

Myself I think 2006 WILL see a new entry into the computer in the living room market. It is called the PS3 and rumors about that are nowadays so solid it we even have some idea about how it will be done. The PS3 will have an optional addon in the form of a HD wich will contain a version of the linux kernel (no not GNU/Linux, I said kernel) and presumably some kind of userspace software to use it. Cool as booting linux is the usual purpose is to then get a working enviroment.

Note that is NOT clear yet that this addon will turn your PC into a desktop. Merely that it can boot the kernel. Logic would dictate that Sony wouldn't do this without a very good reason, like trying to get a shot at putting the desktop in the living room, but who knows.

It is however an optional extra and this makes it clear that Sony is not exactly making a major push out of it. Unless of course all the really good games require the add-on.

So how does this relate to a Google PC? Well Sony can do this attempt on the back of its regular launch of a new console. The console, sony hopes, will be attractive enough on its own to get into millions of homes. To then add a tiny amount of extra effort and be able to stealthly introduce their own PC like solution into those exact same homes must be nice bonus. It is well known that the asian tech giants are not at all happy with MS dominance on the PC market and would love to get their teeth into it.

So a linux desktop to attack MS where have you heard that before eh? Well don't forget that Sony (if it will truly do this) has two gigantic advantages over such efforts as Lindows. 100% Hardware support. No problem with getting companies to create proper drivers for a tiny marketshare. The team behind the PS3 knows what hardware is inside and could easily write the drivers. One often mentioned problem of Linux swept away in an instant. Oh and I bet it also makes the whole "configuration" a lot easier. There is after all only going to be one.

Second Linux problem? No games. Well for some reason I do not think that buying the Linux addon is going to brick your PS3 and make it impossible to game with it. Another problem of Linux instantly swept away.

Now Google doesn't have anything like that. While its software is "installed" on every pc (A common browser) it is almost impossible for them to PUSH their technology. They certainly can't piggy back it onto anything. The recent deal with opera on the mobile market is perhaps the only way Google can "force" its way onto a computer.

Or put another way, PS3 would be bought for games and the desktop is an extra. GooglePC would be bought for .... Well it would be the same as the Lindows PC. An computer that could be quite good but would never be the real thing. Even such simple things as getting Flash to work would be a killer for a browser PC. So why should a person buy a crippled PC when for a few bucks more they can get one that is a proper windows machine (Security? Yeah like walmart buyers know about that).

There might be another possible avenue of approach and that is to pull an iPod with the GooglePC. Part of Apples success is that it was rich and powerfull enough to make a bet and order the parts for the iPod in such numbers that it could get huge discounts. It is not that the iPod is better then say iRiver or even Creatives offerings. But as shown painfully clear with the iPod Nano, Apple could simply offer more for less. its competitors simply can't put the same hardware inside for the same price.

Apple when it entered the MP3 player market was an accidental giant (Sony/Philips/etc were all asleep at the wheel) who could simply squish all competitors.

Is the PC market similary open? Can a company with enough muzzle simply order a milli

Hmmm ... unlikely, but if true then it could be:

Solaris 10 or Linux with a Gnome front-end (custom theme) and a document/data centric file browser and application suite. Of course the GTK load/save dialogs would also be replaced with document/data centric interfaces rather than the traditional file system view. Office tasks would be handled via StarOffice or OpenOffice. The browser would be Firefox. Again, the theme would be consistent for these applications as well. I'd expect a certain amount of lock-down and customisability restrictions.

The computer would also act as a home search box, it'd index all accessible data sources - network drives, etc. The file browser would give you a simple interface to all of these, again in a document centric manner.

Thing is, whilst possible, and indeed I wouldn't mind having the OS manage my files for me if it did it well and the files were properly indexed, I don't think Google could have arranged this in even 3 years of development - it is a lot of work. Then again, they are a very motivated company.

Misleading and untrue

The machine would run an operating system created by Google

Google has neither the skills nor the team to create an operating system in 2006. If they distribute anything called Google OS, it will be a derivative work of an already existing OS. Maybe from a proprietary one but more probably from a Free one. The question remains: Linux, Darwin, Solaris or OpenBSD.

Google would benefit ...

Let's see.. Google already runs tens of thousands of servers. They have stated they need more bandwidth and more power.

Wouldn't it be great if they have a computing box in *every* home, just to extend their computing power? No power bills, no need to buy more hardware?

Give the owners some of the benefits (cached searches, gmail, maybe use it as a PC in some ways, and otherwise use the box for your own purposes.). Interesting thought.

One question remains

Will my Google PC be compatible with my CueCat?

Google OS, please not Linux!

I mean, we are in serious need of a NEW OS, something not derived from 20+ year old technology.

Both NT and Linux and OSX streams are all based on last century technology using ancient file systems and trying to do modern techniquies like Database driven file systems and online Internet access.

For a Modern OS, I propose that Google start fresh, from the ground up, using these concepts:

1) TRUE meta driven DB file system. Append to the front or back of every file meta data and index meta data in a true DB file system. Tiger isn't there yet, Tiger simply endlessly indexes files in a half assed attempt to seem like a modern OS. WinFS might be closer, whenever MS figures out how to do it.

2) Flat file system, throw out folders and directories structures. There is no need to atrificailly distribute files across archaic tree structures if your using a true DB file system. All files could be accessed using database views (i.e. show me all pictures taken in 2005, or show me all letters written to Jane, or all music by Ween). You can actually imitate folder trees by putting a path meta tag in the file header, but there is no need to physically address files in tree structures. Instead, worry about putting frequently accessed files in faster parts of the hard drive.

3) Make a distinction between USER data and SYSTEM data. Who needs to be aware of 100,000+ files on your OS? 99% of all the files on your Windows or *nix OS are completely meaningless to you. A Modern OS should make a distinction between System data and User data. System data is ALL files that YOU didn't create, save to, or distribute from your computer, and these system files should not be indexed or maintained by a DB file system. System files can remain in a protected bubble on your hard drive and accessed by developer tools. Instead, index only those image, video, music and document files the user actually cares about and hide the rest. I don't want to see 100,000+ files on my computer anymore. Kind of like what Google Destop does, but being more aware of the difference between System and User files.

4) END FILE EXTENSIONS. REAL OSES don't need a .jpg to know its a jpeg file! META DATA PEOPLE!

5) Wrap Applications in ONE OBJECT. Apple had it, but lost it moving to OSX. The idea that ALL files associated with an Application remain in ONE OBJECT. Do not allow Applications to spread themselves across a hard drive, installing parts to a variety of locations and modifying other files (sorry, OSX does this, putting files and configuration settings in multiple locations, and then FORGETTING about them). A Modern OS will figure out how to protect an Application as an Object without allowing it to be distributed illegally, something Apple never figured out how to do. To install an Application, drag it to the partition, to uninstall it, delete it, period. Once an Application is uninstalled, the OS and computer should look like the Application never existed, period. NO ORPHANED APPLICATION DATA.

6) Make internet connectivity a requirement. A modern OS shouldn't operate without internet connectivity. By constantly keeping up-to-date on security issues, and also allowing for proper online authentification of applications and media, a modern OS would allow for a new generation of online media distribution that isn't prone to piracy (i.e. the music and movie industries actually embracing online distribution). Building an OS around the internet should also make is the most secure and safe environment. Rather then the constant forcing of old, pre-internet operating systems to modern day online needs and introducing security flaws, start fresh.

If anyone has the resources to actually make a successful new OS, it would be Google. By taking their web indexing techniques and creating a new File system with these concepts in mind, a Google OS will make accessing data effortless and fast.

Just, please don't get into that trend and habit of using Linux as a base. NO LINUX

They will PAY you at Walmart to take it home!

Who needs common sense when you can ride the industry craze. A couple years ago we would hear about a Java Operating System, that would render laptops free. Today it's all Google: "The machine would run an operating system created by Google, not Microsoft's Windows, which is one reason it would be so cheap -- perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars."

Too bad the idiots didn't bother to check the facts: Windows OEM license is actually in the $50-$90 range. That's exactly the savings you get for not preinstalling Windows on a PC. The rest is hardware.

There is another somewhat plausible explanation of low cost however: having an Operating System so lightweight, it doesn't requires too much hardware. For a common e-mail-browser-wordprocessor-spreadsheet use case one doesn't need 1Gb or RAM. Building an OS that is oriented toward that use case should result in much lower resource requirements, making hardware cheaper.

Re:Irony

This is perfectly okay, because Google is not Evil... yet. Once google turn evil, then we'll turn on Google just like we've turned on Microsoft.

Really, I don't mind big companies, as long as they Do The Right Thing, which is what Google seem to be doing right now.

Re:Irony

Microsoft is so evil for branching into pretty much everything, yet Google appears to be following suit.

Can't help but feed the trolls this morning!

Microsoft are not considedered evil for branching into other areas of business. They're evil because they illegally utilized their dominance in one area to extend their business into other areas, stifling competition and therefore harming consumers.

Tell me how Google are illegally utilizing their dominance in search to extend into other areas? Tell me how Google have stifled competition.

Until them I don't see them 'following' MS at all.

Re:Irony

What happened to the old mantra of 'Legality doesn't equal moralily' that's always wheeled out during the piracy articles?

Re:Irony

You must be new. Here are the basic rules of Slashdot.

1. We hate Microsoft. Anything they do is wrong. Bill Gates is stupid. Anything they do is evil.
2. We like Apple. Steve Jobs walks on water. Even when they do the same thing as Microsoft, its okay because its Apple.
3. We like Google. We think they're cool. Even when they do the same thing as Microsoft, its okay because they run Linux on most of their machines.

Re:Walmart-Google PC

Well, so much for "Don't be evil".