Windows 8 in 2012 – it’s all about sales

 

Windows 8 in 2012?

 

Steven Sinofsky may not be talking about Microsoft's future Windows plans, but the Windows Server team appears to see more value in letting customers know its road map.

In at least two slides apparently shown at the Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles this week, Microsoft suggests that a major release update to Windows Server is due around 2012, with one of the slides confirming the Windows 8 code name.

I've asked both the desktop and server teams for more context on the slides, which were noted this week by blogger Stephen Chapman. A similar slide cropped up--that time in Italian-- in August.

For his part, Sinofsky sat completely stone-faced when I asked him in our interview Wednesday where Microsoft was at relative to Windows 8--later noting that he hadn't even used the word Windows next to the numeral 8.

"I didn't say any of the words--Windows 8--those were all your words," he said

The 2012 time frame would roughly coincide with Windows Server's plans of having a minor release every two years or so and a major release every four years. It released Windows Server 2008 R2, a minor update, earlier this year as the desktop team released Windows 7.

In recent years, Microsoft has tended to line up its desktop and server releases fairly closely, although in this case the desktop OS was probably a more significant release than its server counterpart.

Google Mots clés : Windows 8, 2012, Windows 7

Google Unveils Chrome OS; Tech World Yawns

 

Google Unveils Chrome OS; Tech World Yawns

Earlier this week, Google gave the world a first look at the Chrome OS. The press event confirmed what was suspected when Google announced it was working on a netbook operating system four months ago -- it would emphasize speed and simplicity. As the tech world tests versions of the operating system that were compiled from Google's source code it is looking like the project's priorities may be weaknesses.

Chromium OS is simple; so simple that most hands-on impressions are calling it the Chrome browser with a few add-ons. The OS adds features such as a battery life indicator and window management, but lacks a few standards -- such as a way to shut down the OS.

A big advantage to Chrome is that the cloud-based model has the potential for extremely fast computing, including a boot time as short as three seconds. Right now, Chrome OS is getting mixed speed results, which is probably because it is running through virtual machines.

Vladislav Savov of Engadget reports his install booted to the login screen in fewer than ten seconds and was able to browse the Web in another five.

Sean Kalinich from Tweaktown had a far more underwhelming experience. His machine was booting about as fast as a laptop running Windows 7 off a SSD. Here's what he had to say:

"Boot up - From pressing the start (power) link until we hit the log in screen was 14.8 seconds. After typing in our log in information (which HAS to be a Gmail account), it took a further 4.4 seconds to get to the "Desktop", so total boot up time is about 20-25 . . . "

It seems that it is too early to tell if the Chrome OS will be a hit or a flop. To be fair, this is a very early version of the OS that wasn't ever meant to be much more than a browser. As Harry McCracken of Technologizer points out, Google said the OS is subject to quite a bit of change before an official release next year, and critiquing the OS is premature until a close-to-final build is available.

Google Mots clés : Google, Chrome OS, Tech World Yawns

Underwhelmed By Chrome OS? That's Kinda the Point - Business Center - PC World Business Center

 

Underwhelmed By Chrome OS? That's Kinda the Point

Google's newly unveiled operating system has many critics unimpressed, but Chrome OS is meant to be lean, fast, and simple, not flashy. Robert Strohmeyer, PC World

Was this article useful? Yes 105 No 7

When Google unveiled its open source Chrome OS on Thursday, many commentators were quick to dismiss the new operating system as unimpressive and underwhelming. Citing everything from the browser interface that represents the entirety of the user experience to its limited hardware support and inability to install apps or play PC games, early critics have slammed Google's cloud-based OS for being exactly what it is intended to be: lean, fast, and simple.

To my eye, all this criticism appears to miss the point of Chrome OS--and indeed, the point of most of Google's services. Of course, this is nothing new for Google.

Simplicity By Design

At the launch of the company's eponymous search engine in 1998, Google stood out from the pack of increasingly cluttered search portals with which it competed. In a time when leading Internet companies sought to become destinations by loading up their home pages with news, weather, entertainment links, shopping deals, and anything else they could think of, Google took a different tack by presenting a clean, white page with little more than a search field under the site's name.

I distinctly recall several colleagues scoffing at the simplicity of Google's home page at the time. Where were the news articles? The stock tickers? The pictures of celebrities? Why would anyone want a home page consisting of nothing but a search engine? Yet Google's pundit-defying search tool quickly became the home page of choice for millions of users worldwide.

Over time, Google rolled out additional services, including a few built to deliver the very services its home page lacked. But with every new service it launched, Google retained its characteristic simplicity, putting information--not splashy design--at the foreground.

Chrome OS is an obvious extension of Google's design simplicity, and it's no great surprise that many observers are unimpressed by the sight of it. It's little more than a Web browser. On first glimpse, it's nearly identical to the Chrome browser that's currently available for Windows PCs. And that's exactly what Google is going for.

The central principle behind Chrome OS is that the browser is the focal point for most computing tasks. So Google has put it front and center in Chrome, reducing the rest of the operating system down to a minimal Linux kernel that drives only the most essential hardware components for a Web-centric user.

Life in the Cloud

Google has designed Chrome OS as a platform for people who use computers primarily online, and the company is betting that many folks will happily trade their desktop apps for alternatives in the cloud. Naturally, this won't appeal to all users. I'd even say it won't appeal to most users, at least initially.

But multiple lines of evidence suggest that cloud services are the computing model for the future--a fact that even desktop-dominant Microsoft has embraced, as it prepares to roll out its Office Live services as a companion to its longstanding desktop suite (a companion that many savvy users will undoubtedly use in lieu of the desktop suite). What lines of evidence am I talking about? Enterprise adoption, device-agnostic work habits, and nearly constant wireless connectivity.

Cloud computing is now a standard business practice worldwide. For a start, two million companies (ranging from small mom-and-pop operations to large enterprises like Genentech and Motorola--use Google Apps for e-mail, document editing, collaboration, scheduling, and intranet hosting. CRM tools like Salesforce.com are rapidly replacing desktop and client-server application suites for sales teams of all sizes. Hosting providers like Rackspace are attracting major companies such as Sears, Volvo, and KFC with the promise of cheap, rock-solid server management and storage in the cloud. Perusing the list of companies that rely on just these few examples pokes a gaping hole in the ill-considered argument that cloud computing is either too flaky or too unsecured for serious business.

At the same time, knowledge workers now operate in a device-agnostic work environment that has old-school desktop PCs working alongside laptops, netbooks, and cell phones on a daily basis. RIM's BlackBerry, which has been the leading standard in U.S. smartphones for business since the beginning of this century, has proven beyond all doubt that small mobile devices can do mission-critical work with minimal specs and software.

The launch of the iPhone demonstrated that, armed with a decent Web browser, phones can do more than most of us ever imagined we'd want them to. Add to this mix the proliferation of netbooks, and you have a world in which millions of users can not only work from anywhere, but also need to keep important data synced between two, three, or even four machines at any given time. And the best tools for keeping all that data synced, such as SugarSync and Dropbox, are based in the cloud.

Wi-Fi is not ubiquitous, but it's darned widespread and still rapidly spreading. Wireless broadband ain't cheap, but it's getting cheaper all the time. When I travel, I find myself almost constantly connected to the Web. With my existing netbook (which doesn't have a 3G card), I typically get a wireless connection at the airport, on the plane, in my hotel room, at conference centers, and at any cafes I stop at along the way. Wireless networks are now so common that I can seldom use lack of connectivity as an excuse to stop working.

If I had a 3G card, I'd be able to use it in all the in-between places, too, such as taxis, trains, and park benches. But since I don't, I use Google Gears to keep my Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Calendar data cached to my local drive for those rare moments when I'm not online. Any work I do offline gets synced automatically back to the cloud the next time I connect from anywhere.

My point here is that wireless access has become so nearly constant that the cloud has become the hands-down simplest way to keep everything handy at any given time. And when I get back to the office and my desktop PC, I can just keep working without worrying about e-mailing files to myself or plugging in USB drives.

Underwhelmed By Chrome OS? That's Kinda the Point - Business Center - PC World Business Center

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes -

 

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics

 

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.

The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.

"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."

"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."

In his new book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate," Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation's public policy response.

"I've been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career," writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. "I'm still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal."

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com