GOOGLE TAKES A YEAR AND A HALF TO INVENT SOMETHING BETTER TH

Post Reply New Topic

GOOGLE TAKES A YEAR AND A HALF TO INVENT SOMETHING BETTER THAN WINDOWS

INTERNET giant Google was facing collapse last night after it revealed it had taken 18 months to come up with something that might be better than Windows.

Google said its new operating system would probably be faster and more efficient than Microsoft's, but industry experts said that should have taken about 20 minutes, including an 18 minute tea break.

Julian Cook, deputy editor of ejacutech.com, said: "I come up with something better than Windows during my morning s**t.

"Last week I gave my nine month-old son a go on my laptop and he immediately started to cry. About 30 seconds later he had come up with something better than Windows using a half a crayon and some mashed yams."

He added "If Google is taking 18 months to develop something that they 'think' might be better than something that could not be any worse, then perhaps this company is actually being run by a gang of disused Muppets who have escaped from wicker basket in Jim Henson's attic."

Google said its Chrome operating system would exist in a 'cloud' that you will not be able to 'see', but that you would be able to 'see' the error messages very easily as they will be sitting neatly alongside the perpetual f*****g update messages.

A spokesman said: "We took a long, hard look at computers and stuff and said 'why does crushing disappointment and the sort of frustration that make you want to eat your own eyes have to come in a box?'."

But Microsoft dismissed the latest Google challenge and said it was developing a new type of 'platform' that could pick up broadcast signals 'out of thin air', relay them through a loudspeaker in your living room and will only have to be restarted five times an hour.

it's already been done.... it's called Linux

Only if you're a programmer and/or server technician.

For the other 98% of computer users: GAME ON, EXPRESS YOUR ARTISTIC SIDE and KEEP MAKING MUSIC!

...by getting a Mac!

I would get one if their computers weren't around twice as much as a PC with similar hardware. ($700 Mac Mini? And that's their CHEAPEST Mac?)

If you want decent hardware, not just the basic option, the prices are pretty much the same for PCs and Macs.

Shh, Dont tell the low end users how they subsidise the high end users.

If you want decent hardware, not just the basic option, the prices are pretty much the same for PCs and Macs.

Oh really?

The closest equivalent Mac to that Acer (17-inch screen) has an Intel Core i5 processor at 2.53GHz, which benchmarks as being worse than the AMD Phenom II on the Acer. The Nvidia graphics card on the Macbook Pro similarly benchmarks below the ATI 5650 on the Acer (the 330m can't handle DirectX 11, while the 5650 can). Hard drives, memory and most other specs are equivalent on those two. The MBP has a slightly better display resolution, nicer webcam, and longer battery life. On balance, I think we can call the two as being equivalent quality hardware-wise, and that is being generous to the Mac.

Price tags? $750 for the Acer, $2300 for the Mac. The Mac with equivalent specs is more than three times as expensive in this case. Throw in the cost of buying a DVD-R and installing Linux Mint to the Acer, and you have a system which is at least as powerful and just as simple to set up and use for less than a third the price.