It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google VS. Microsoft

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by eagle eye
xbox is the lamest game console ever created.

I agree; many people think that because it has had a few good first person shooters, it's immediately the greatest console ever. Most aren't aware that among the general gaming population, the XBOX still has the lowest rating of the current gen systems, worse than Nintendo Gamecube's.

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:30 AM
But the appeal for developers of Xbox game is that it uses Direct X which means they can make games easier and faster then say when PS2 came out.

If i remember correctly developers had a nightmare time developing games for it due to the predictive coding that the developing software used, it was good in the sense that if you planted one tree it would spawn others around it or in a predictive way that looked unique and not a clone of the original tree. But then, this was it's downfall as well, as often it would spawn 1,000's of trees when all the developers wanted was 1.

So until someone comes up with a software code as compatible and as widespread as Direct X, I can't see any OS coming close to Microsofts.


posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:43 AM
I can run just about any Windows software on this linux system. Maybe not DirectX specific apps, but for games that are worth it, there's OpenGL.

Let MS have their DirectX. Let them go the way of Sega with focus on game consoles. The majority of Windows users aren't huge 3D action gamers, and wouldn't notice if DirectX was missing. Most poeple just use their computer for email and "Yahoo."

I had always expected Google to offer a remote access operating system. Something where you would go to say, and up pops your desktop. Essentially turning the PC into a dumb terminal. If they do begin offering desktop OS software, things will definitely get interesting. The Linux userbase is starting to expand into the general public, and Mac is getting back in the game too. I see some corporate mergers in the future.

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by warpboost
IMO the future is a sort of distributed computing model you will tap into or utility computing like you get electricity. I think the way to go would be to have a terminal hooked up to the internet athtw ould boot the OS from a server online. google has spoke of an OS as well as office apps. I think it would appeal to lots of people to have the OS boot from an online server where Google engineers patch it, optimize for performance, backup all your data etc... Another benefit in my mind is that expensive hardware upgrades would be done on the server side so you would only need a basic dummy terminal that doesnt really have to compute much, yet you could still have a blazingly fast computer.

While the idea is not bad at all, it could work.. we are getting more and more data bouncing around every year.. soon there will probably be alot more 3D images and HD-video's ets.. its a good idea mainly for grandma who doesent really know jack about computers.. but the terminals would have to be really powerfull with todays standards. And we are no way near a halt in needing more speed in home computers.. when we get to utopia of graphics with simulating reality with both graphics and physics and then the possibility to do so from a hosehold computer and send information like this through the internet and a little more power still... then maybe terminals would be a good idea :

Edit: Sorry i read it wrong, you want to do all calulations on the server.. i think that would be a pretty bad idea.. but once a certain utopia of computing power is reached there will not really be much need for anyone to upgrade anyway.. and in such time a dummy terminal might be feasible.

Anyone want to take a guess on how long time before we can simulate perfect reality on a home computer ? My guess would be 50 years. 2056

[edit on 10-5-2006 by SilverSurfer]

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:35 PM
I think Google is the "cool" company of the last few years.

I like Google maps, email and a few other programs.

But I don't think Google will over take Microsoft anytime soon.

Microsoft makes tons of money, and there stock is priced at a way better Price to Earnings ratio. Google in my opinion is an over priced stock for the earnings. Given the Apple and Google trendy factor.

I agree some Microsoft programs are bloated and have many holes. You gotta give Microsoft credit for at least making many things backwards compatible. Apple does not go this far back in operating system compatibilty.

Google is starting to get the feel of a Microsoft big brother people talk about. But you know what, I love having kick ass American companies period. Why does Microsoft get bashed so much? Why not bash China for massive transfer of technology that is mostly not authorized?

Google is getting into Microsoft territory by swooping up hot technologies from smaller companies. So does that make them the darling underdog?

Hey if we get two strong companies out of this pushing technology forward I am all for it.

I think Google is at a cross roads make the leap from mainly a search engine into an even larger company. I think they are going to pull it off.

But companies shift all the time. AOL was the hot thing in the 1990's, and the market changed to high speed internet.

So the hot companies like My Space or Google can fly high for a few years, but true tech companies find away to survive the longer term. So the jury is still out.

Or in Microsoft's case just buy everything up.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in