Upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7

More from WSJ's Walt Mossberg on migrating their existing PCs to Microsoft's new edition of Windows, called Windows 7.

If you are currently running Windows Vista, an upgrade is far simpler than upgrading from XP. Unlike migrating from XP, the upgrade from Vista is designed to be relatively straightforward. It’s a direct upgrade process that preserves all your personal files, settings and programs.

However, even this easier transition involves some choices and limitations that can be confusing for mainstream, non-techie users, so I will try to sort them out here. Throughout this column, I will be referring to simple, direct, upgrades meant for average users. I won’t be discussing more complex methods that require things like wiping out, or dividing, hard disks.

Unlike Vista, Windows 7 doesn’t require beefier hardware than its immediate predecessor. It should work fine on nearly every Vista PC, and even on many late-model computers running XP. In fact, it is a bit less demanding than Vista. For instance, Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated Windows 7 working on low-powered netbooks that choked on Vista.

However, just like Vista, Windows 7 will be sold in a multitude of different editions, and deciding which one to buy can be confusing. There are six different flavors, though one is reserved for countries Microsoft calls “emerging markets.” Of the remaining five, one is for big businesses. Another, a stripped-down edition called Starter, can’t be installed as a direct upgrade for existing computers, according to Microsoft.

Most consumers will likely choose Windows 7 Home Premium, which costs $120 for upgraders and has all the key Windows 7 features. The next step up, called Professional, adds a few extras that may be especially useful for consumers who work at large companies or use older, specialized programs. Most notably, the Professional edition, unlike the Home Premium version, can remotely tap into certain corporate networks that use a system called “Domain Joining.” And the Professional version has the ability to run older Windows XP programs that wouldn’t otherwise work in Windows 7. It costs $200 for upgraders. The other likely choice is called Ultimate. It combines every feature of the other editions but costs upgraders $100 more than Home Premium.

There are limitations on which current Vista machines can be directly upgraded to the various versions of Windows 7. In general, you can only upgrade your current version of Vista to the comparable version of Windows 7. For instance, Vista Home Premium can only be upgraded to Windows 7 Home Premium and Vista Business can only be upgraded to Windows 7 Professional. This rule has two exceptions. Any flavor of Vista except Starter can be upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate, if you care to spend the extra money. And Vista Home Basic can be upgraded to Windows 7 Home Premium.

All of the three common consumer versions of Windows 7 can run inside virtual machines, such as the faux Windows computers created on Apple Macintosh hardware using the Fusion and Parallels software. However, the upgrade rules still apply.

After you’ve installed Windows 7, you can move up from Home Premium to Professional with minimal extra effort, for an added sum, by using a program from Microsoft called Windows Anytime Upgrade. This unlocks the added features of Professional, which were actually already on your machine, but were hidden. You can do the same thing to move up to Ultimate.

However, there’s another complication. For each of the three main consumer versions of Windows 7, there are actually two editions. One is meant for PCs with standard processors, called 32-bit processors, and the other for PCs that sport newer processors called 64-bit processors. The 32-bit version of Windows can recognize only 3 gigabytes of memory, but the 64-bit version can use much, much more. For most average users, 3 gigabytes is plenty, but some consumers have 64-bit Vista machines, which can move faster when lots of programs are being used at once, or when doing tasks like playing back high-definition video.

The problem is that you cannot directly upgrade 32-bit Vista to 64-bit Windows 7, or vice versa. So that adds another layer of complexity to the upgrade process.

Finally, a note about prices. Most major Windows PC makers are offering free, or very low cost, upgrades to Windows 7 later, if you buy a Vista PC now. They are doing this, in cooperation with Microsoft, to discourage people from waiting until October to buy a new PC. Each hardware company has slightly different policies on this. However, this free upgrade program isn’t of any help if you simply want to keep your existing PC and upgrade it to Windows 7.

You can learn more about the various editions of Windows 7 at: windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare-editions?T1=tab01. And I’ll have a full review closer to its Oct. 22 release date.

—Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A29

The Military Is Not the Police

As the N.Y. Times reports 7/30/09, we all need take action when the lines between the military and the police get blurred. Read on...

It was disturbing to learn the other day just how close the last administration came to violating laws barring the military from engaging in law enforcement when President George W. Bush considered sending troops into a Buffalo suburb in 2002 to arrest terrorism suspects. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily a problem of the past. More needs to be done to ensure that the military is not illegally deployed in this country.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from law enforcement activities within the United States. If armed officers are going to knock on Americans’ doors, or arrest them in the streets, they should answer to civilian authorities.

Despite this bedrock principle, The Times’s Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston reported last week, top Bush administration officials, including (no surprise) Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that the president had the authority to use the military to round up a suspected terrorist cell known as the Lackawanna Six.

Mr. Cheney and others cited a legal memorandum co-written by John C. Yoo (author of the infamous torture memo), which made the baseless claim that the military can go after accused Al Qaeda terrorists on United States soil because it would be a matter of national security, not law enforcement.

The Lackawanna Six controversy is history, but there are troubling signs the military may be injecting itself today into law enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union has been sounding the alarm about the proliferation of “fusion centers,” in which federal, state and local law enforcement cooperate on anti-terrorism work. According to the A.C.L.U., the lines have blurred, and the centers have involved military personnel in domestic law enforcement. Congress should investigate.

Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said Wednesday that fusion centers were not intended to have a military presence, and that she was not aware of ones that did. She promised greater transparency about what role, if any, the active military was playing.

Civil libertarians are also raising questions about a program known as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological/Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives Consequence Management Response Force. The Army says its aim is to have active-duty troops ready to back up local law enforcement in catastrophic situations, like an attack with a nuclear weapon. That could be legal, but the workings of these units are murky. Again, Congress should ensure that the military is not moving into prohibited areas.

Some of the military’s line-crossing seems ad hoc. Earlier this year, when a man in a small town in Alabama went on a shooting spree, Army troops reportedly went out on the streets to participate in the law enforcement effort. It is still unclear precisely what role they played. It is important that the military be thoroughly trained on what the law does and does not permit.

After the lack of respect for posse comitatus at the highest ranks of the previous administration, the Obama White House and Congress must ensure that the lines between military and law enforcement have been restored, clearly, and that they are respected.

Life's Small Pleasure #725 - When the light turns green just as you’re approaching the intersection

We all need to smile a bit more.

Here's a site of about 1,000 small pleasures of daily life...

http://1000awesomethings.com/page/1/

Transition to Windows 7 is gonna be tough. Can we say Apple?

WSJ's Walt Mossberg says the transition to Windows 7 is gonna be tough. Can we say Apple? Read on.

On October 22, Microsoft will finally release a new version of Windows that will be as good as the deeply disappointing Windows Vista should have been when it came out in January 2007. The new edition, called Windows 7, is a big improvement over both Vista and the sturdy, 2001-vintage Windows XP still widely in use. It will give Apple’s (AAPL) long-superior Mac OS X operating system a run for its money (though Apple might maintain its edge with a new version, called Snow Leopard, due in September).

But how will Windows users transition their current computers to the new Windows 7? While this latest operating system stresses simplicity, the upgrade process will be anything but simple for the huge base of average consumers still using XP, who likely outnumber Vista users. It will be frustrating, tedious and labor-intensive.

In fact, the process will be so painful that, for many XP users, the easiest solution may be to buy a new PC preloaded with Windows 7, if they can afford such a purchase in these dire economic times. In fact, that’s the option Microsoft (MSFT) recommends for XP users. (Conveniently, this option also helps Microsoft’s partners that make PCs.)

By contrast, if you’re using Vista, the upgrade to Windows 7 should be a fairly easy, straightforward process. Because the new version shares most of the underlying guts of Vista, it installs itself on your current machine relatively quickly and smoothly, preserving all your files, folders, settings and programs. In a test of this process earlier this year, using a pre-release version of Windows 7, I upgraded a Vista laptop with no problems and little effort in about an hour.

But Windows XP users, including the millions who have recently snapped up cheap, XP-powered netbooks, will first have to wipe out everything on their hard disks in order to install Windows 7. on their current machines. In fact, Microsoft doesn’t even call migrating to Windows 7 from XP an “upgrade.” It refers to it as a “clean install,” or a “custom installation.” This disk wipeout can be performed manually, or automatically during the Windows 7 installation process.

If you’re an XP user, the disk-wiping will cause you to lose your current file and folder organization, and all your programs, though not necessarily your personal data files themselves.

However, in order to preserve these personal files, like documents and photos, you will have to undertake a long, multi-step process, typically requiring the use of an external hard disk, to which all these files will have to be temporarily moved and then moved back.

That means you’ll have to buy or borrow an external hard disk, or clean out enough room on one you already own, to hold all your files.

And the pain doesn’t end there. If you’re an XP user, moving to Windows 7 on your current computer means you will also have to re-install all your programs and restore all the software drivers for your printers and other add-on hardware. That could require locating the original program disks, or downloaded program installers, and then re-downloading and re-installing the numerous updates that have been issued since these original disks or installers came out.

And, there’s another problem: XP hardware drivers won’t work in Windows 7. Microsoft says it can automatically replace thousands of common older drivers with newer Windows 7-compatible versions, but admits that there may be some for which it doesn’t have replacements. The company specifically warns that some netbooks may include obsolete drivers.

Netbook owners face another problem. Even though Microsoft says Windows 7 will work fine on netbooks, most of them lack a DVD drive, which is needed to run the Windows 7 installation disk. So they’ll have to buy or borrow an external DVD drive.

Microsoft has taken some steps to make this easier. It plans to offer a free “Easy Transfer” program (explained at http://bit.ly/M5Il7) that will automate the process of moving your personal files to an external drive, and then restoring them to your computer after Windows 7 is installed. But this program won’t transfer your programs, only your personal data.

Also, if you don’t want to use an external hard disk to temporarily store your files, you can transfer them over a cable or network to another computer. The company even has an alternative where it will stow your personal data in a special folder called windows.old, on the transformed PC. But you’ll then have to manually move all of these files back to their normal locations.

Finally, Microsoft officials point out that this XP migration issue may be moot for many owners of older XP computers, because their ancient machines lack enough memory, hard disk space, or graphics power to accommodate Windows 7 anyway.

And, even if a really old machine is marginally capable of running Windows 7, it’s a mistake to try and cram a new OS into it and expect a great experience.

But if you do own an otherwise capable computer that happens to be running Windows XP, you’re likely facing a painful process should you choose to transition it to Windows 7.

Find Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Could Microsoft Make This Any More Confusing?

Now, ZDNet's Ed Bott, trys to de-tangle the mess Microsoft will unleash for people wanting to upgrade to Windows 7: See if you can follow this Chinese puzzle.

Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote about “Microsoft’s licensing mess.” Judging by my mailbag, nothing has changed in the meantime. Microsoft has done an exceptional job of designing Windows 7, but a terrible job of communicating how it will be sold. As Microsoft dribbles out details of the Windows 7 release schedule and product lineup, including pricing and upgrade offers, I’ve been deluged with questions from readers about whether they qualify for a Windows 7 upgrade and, if so, what’s the simplest, most cost-effective way to acquire it.

Before I dive into the Q&A section, it’s worth taking a second to clear up the source of much of the confusion I’m encountering. In the often bewildering world of Windows licensing, the word upgrade has two separate and distinct meanings. The first refers to the license that you purchase, which in turn allows you to run Windows on a specific PC. The second refers to a mode of setup, where you keep installed programs and personal data files while replacing the underlying operating system.

Confused? Let’s see if I can untangle things.

I’m currently running the Windows 7 Ultimate Release Candidate. What are my upgrade options?

From a licensing point of view, your installed copy of Windows is irrelevant. What matters is the sticker on the side of the PC. If you have a Certificate of Authenticity for Windows XP or Windows Vista on that computer (or a certificate of authenticity from a retail copy of Windows that has been assigned to that machine), you qualify for an upgrade license to any edition of Windows 7.

As for the installation itself, you are subject to the following technical limitations:

• An upgrade installation is blocked on the RC build (7100). To perform an in-place upgrade, you must modify an installation file using the technique described here.
• Because you are running Ultimate edition, your only option for an in-place upgrade is to install Windows 7 Ultimate edition.
• You cannot change from Windows 7 x86 (32-bit) to x64 (64-bit) or vice versa. If you’ve been testing the 32-bit version and you want to go 64-bit, you’ll need to do a custom install.

I am currently running a licensed copy of Windows Vista Ultimate. Do I have to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate?

Again, there’s a two-part answer here. From a licensing point of view, you qualify for an upgrade license to any edition of Windows 7. As far as installing the upgrade, that’s another story. You can’t downgrade as part of an installation, so if you decide to move from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Home Premium or Professional, you’ll need to do a custom installation. You can upgrade from any lower version to the same edition or a higher one, with some exceptions. So if you’re running Vista Home Premium, you can perform an upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium or Ultimate. [Update: Microsoft has published several documents purporting to describe how upgrades will work and has retracted at least one of them. Until the final code is released, it's impossible to confirm which versions are correct.]

Is it fair that I have to pay the same price to upgrade from Windows Vista Ultimate as someone running Windows XP Home or Vista Home Basic?

No, it’s not fair. But the alternative would be ludicrously complicated.

What’s the difference between an OEM license, an upgrade license, a full license, and a volume license?

Can I just explain the infield fly rule? That would be easier. Seriously.

No? OK, fine:

• An OEM Windows license is one that’s included with a new computer. The top 20 manufacturers get insanely great discounts on Windows compared to retail costs. This license is locked to the computer on which it’s installed.
• A System Builder OEM license has a much lower discount but is still a pretty good deal with a new PC from a small system builder.
• An upgrade license is a discounted retail copy of Windows that can only be installed on a system that already has an OEM or full license.
• A full license is sold at retail and is intended for use on a computer that was not sold with Windows originally. The price is horrendously high.
• Volume licenses are sold in bulk to corporate customers, in quantities of five or more at a time. A volume license is available as an upgrade only.

You keep mentioning a “custom installation.” Is that the same as a clean install?

Not exactly. A custom installation allows you to install Windows on a freshly formatted partition, which is the definition of a clean install. But you can also use a custom installation to set up Windows on a drive that already has Windows installed on it, without wiping out the previous installation. Your old system and data files go in a folder called Windows.old.

I’m running the Windows 7 RC. But the pre-order upgrade offer from Microsoft says I have to be running a genuine copy of Windows XP or Windows Vista. So do I have to pay full price and buy a full license?

No. You qualify for upgrade pricing (assuming that the system originally included a licensed copy of Windows XP or Vista and has a Certificate of Authenticity) but are free to do a custom installation.

I am using Windows Vista Home Basic now. How can I upgrade to Windows 7 Home Basic?

You can’t. At least, not if you live in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, or the rest of the “developed world.” Beginning with Windows 7, Home Basic is available only in so-called emerging markets.

How do I do a clean install without wiping out all my data?

No one knows yet. Microsoft has apparently changed the upgrade rules for Windows 7. When I get a chance to test the upgrade media, you’ll be the first to know.

Sit Down and Shut Up Department

''Quitting: the new American value." ''Thanks for the laughs.''

It's oh so fitting for Sarah Palin to walk away...

Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska Sunday night. She clearly imagines herself to someday be the next President of the United States, getting to tell guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad where to get off, yet leaves whining about a bad joke from David Letterman.

You rarely get political farewells this funny outside the state of New Jersey.

Palin doesn’t actually leave the stage now, just goes off at intermission to write a book and get herself some kind of television gig on Fox. Once there, the most famous hockey mom in America — another of the cute catch phrases that replace actual ideas with her — will try to find a way to drive Newt Gingrich, another presidential pretender, right through the boards.

Sarah Palin hadn’t even served two full years as governor when a desperate candidate, John McCain, picked her out of the chorus. She effectively stopped being Alaska’s governor that day. When she finally walked away from the job this weekend, it was just bookkeeping.

The governor as quitter, sharing these deep thoughts with us on Twitter: “Wrapped up Anch (Anchorage) Gov’s Picnic, awesome. Now road trip to Fairbanks for farewell speech/changing of the guard. Camper full of kids and coffee.”

Compared to most of her other public utterances, this came out sounding like Churchill telling us England was going to fight them on the beaches.

Always with Palin there was this cockeyed idea, usually from the yahoos on the right, the frauds who treat her as being real, that if you attacked her, you were attacking working moms and the “real Americans” she talked about in her speeches, the ones who live far from big cities.

Or that you were somehow threatened by this strong woman. From the start, there was as much substance to that as there is to her political thought, which you could fit inside a golf ball.

And there were probably working moms all over this city, in Queens and Brooklyn, as much the heartland of this country as anywhere else, asking this about Palin from the start, like she wasn’t from Alaska as much as the moon: Who is she, and what in the world is she talking about?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, former actor, stands in there in California in the worst times his state has ever known. Palin cuts and runs. The other day a spokeswoman said this to the Associated Press when asked about Palin’s decision to step down: “The decision [to quit] was made in the vacuum of what was best for Alaska ...”

She could have stopped after the word vacuum. This has nothing to do with what’s best for Alaska and everything to do with what’s good for Palin. For the last year, the people of Alaska were props for her the way that kid, Levi Johnston, the father of her grandchild, was when the Palin family first hit the national consciousness, and we found it was the political version of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.”

We should have known right then what kind of opportunist Palin was, how intoxicated she’d become with instant celebrity, as she took an unwanted teen pregnancy and tried to make it sound like some sort of pro-life sacrament.

“It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: ‘Sit down and shut up,’but that’s the worthless, easy path,” Palin said when announcing her resignation earlier this month. “That’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and ‘go with the flow.’ Nah, only dead fish ‘go with the flow.’”

Wonderful. In her mind, being governor of Alaska is the worthless, easy path. She wades away now, fancying herself as the future of her party and the future of the country. If she is the future of the Republicans, they’re in even more trouble than anybody dreamed. If she’s the future for the rest of us, we’re screwed.

by Mike Lupica, NY Daily News, 7-27-09

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_lupica_oh_so_fitting_to_see_sarah_palin_quitting.html

A Giant Soap Bubble Floating in Space ?

It looks like a soap bubble or perhaps even a camera fault, but the image is a newly discovered planetary nebula.

Planetary nebulae, which got their name after being misidentified by early astronomers, are formed when an aging star weighing up to eight times the mass of the sun ejects its outer layers as clouds of luminous gas.

Most are elliptical, double-lobed or cigar-shaped, evolving after stars eject gas from each pole.

The bubble, which was officially named PN G75.5+1.7 last week, has been there a while. A closer look at images from the second Palomar Sky Survey revealed it had the same size and brightness 16 years ago but was overlooked because it is very faint.

The "Cygnus Bubble" nebula may actually be a cylinder that is being seen from one of its ends, looking down the throat of a typical cylindrical nebula.. This image was taken with the Kitt Peak Mayall 4-metre telescope in Arizona.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.100-giant-soap-bubble-found-floating-in-space.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Asians witness 21st century’s longest eclipse

TAREGNA, India - The longest solar eclipse of the 21st century created near darkness in daytime, along a swath that stretched from India to China and the South Pacific.

Millions gathered in the open to watch the spectacle, but millions more shuttered themselves inside their houses, gripped by fearful myths.

http://www.nightskyinfo.com/solar_eclipses/

Thousands of Hindus took a dip in keeping with the ancient belief that bathing in the river at Varanasi, especially on special occasions, cleanses one's sins. The eclipse was seen there for 3 minutes and 48 seconds.

The eclipse — visible only in Asia — moved eastward from India to Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bhutan and China.

Scientists had predicted the Indian village of Taregna would have the clearest view, and this was where thousands of scientists, nature enthusiasts and students gathered. The party was spoiled by thick clouds and overnight rains, but even that was welcome news for the agricultural area which has seen scant rainfall this monsoon season.

At its peak over the Pacific, the total phase of the eclipse lasted 6 minutes and 39 seconds. That made it the longest-lasting total eclipse since July 11, 1991, when a stretch of totality lasting 6 minutes and 53 seconds was visible from Hawaii to South America. There will not be a longer total eclipse than Wednesday's until 2132.

A 10-member team of scientists from the premier Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore and the Indian air force filmed the eclipse from an airplane, an air force press release said. But millions across India shunned the sight and planned to stay indoors.

Even in regions where the eclipse was not visible, pregnant women were advised to stay indoors in curtained rooms, due to a belief that the sun's invisible rays would harm the fetus and the baby would be born with disfigurations, birthmarks or a congenital defect.

Krati Jain, a software professional in New Delhi, said she planned to take a day off from work Wednesday to avoid what she called "any ill effects of the eclipse on my baby."

"My mother and aunts have called and told me stay in a darkened room with the curtains closed, lie in bed and chant prayers," said Jain, 24, who is expecting her first child.

In the northern Indian state of Punjab, authorities ordered schools to begin an hour late to prevent children from venturing out and gazing at the sun.

Others saw a business opportunity: One travel agency in India scheduled a charter flight to watch the eclipse by air, with seats facing the sun selling at a premium.

Eclipse mania also gripped China. In Beijing, enthusiasts rushed to buy solar filters to watch the partial eclipse safely. "It's quite exciting," Chen Xintian said as she made her purchase. "I've never seen an eclipse before. It's a rare event, and I am very happy."

The track of totality passed right through Shanghai, China's largest city. This led some observers to say that Wednesday's eclipse could have the largest potential audience in history. However, because of Shanghai's cloud cover, many residents couldn't see the actual eclipse above the morning darkness.

The next total solar eclipse is due to occur on July 11, 2010, and will be visible from the South Pacific and parts of South America. That dose of totality will last no longer than 5 minutes and 20 seconds. The continental United States isn't due for a total solar eclipse until Aug. 21, 2017, but on that day, the track of totality will stretch from Oregon to South Carolina.

Eclipses are such an spectacular and unique event that have altered history. A controversial eclipse was the one seen in 29 A.C. Myth states that an eclipse happened during Christ’s crucifying. By available data, this hypothesis is based on the inaccurate Christ birth date, and an eclipse happened during his crucifixion. On November 24th, 29 A.C. an eclipse was seen very close to Jerusalem.

This report includes information from The Associated Press and msnbc.com.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32011724/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Tech's 25 Biggest Flops

According to my Microsoft smart watch, I see it's time again to review Tech's Top 25 Product Flops" via link below.

Hey, I still think the robot dog is way kwel !

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-321513-1.html

Turbo Yo Yo

Dave Schulte tells his yo yo students that if they aren't getting head injuries, they're not trying hard enough.

The 39-year-old Mr. Schulte is a professional yo-yoist who makes $50,000 a year giving lessons and performing. He's got the world on a string -- and a right index finger that's numb from years of yo-yoing.

The sport has been transformed by metal and industrial-plastic yo-yos with ball bearings that spin so fast the tricks possible today would have been unthinkable a few years back. The string spider webs of the "Corn Pops Explosion," the freehand whirls of the "Yosemite Escape" or the tightly wound spins of the "Cold Metal" are all made possible because of advances in yo-yo technology.

The world record for "sleeping," when the yo-yo is at the bottom of the string but spinning rapidly, has gone from just over seven minutes in 1998 to 16 minutes and 17 seconds.

Trouble is, a fast yo-yo can be a dangerous yo-yo. Hardcore yo-yoists now upload images of their battle wounds online: chipped teeth, calloused hands, bandaged brows. Mr. Schulte's angiogram of his right hand showing the ruined veins in his index finger is circulated widely via email among yo-yoists.

At last year's World Yo-Yo Competition, one competitor was carted off on a stretcher. The injured yo-yoist, from Singapore, dislocated his knee during a freestyle competition, which often involves intense full-body choreography.

Simple yo-yos have been around for centuries, but the modern ones have their roots in the 1920s, when Filipino-American Pedro Flores opened a yo-yo shop in Santa Barbara, Calif. American marketer Donald Duncan then bought the company and began pushing manufactured versions nationwide. Most were made of wood or plastic. The inexpensive toys were a hit during the Great Depression.

Throughout the 1950s, Duncan sent traveling yo-yoists across the country to peddle their wares and demonstrate tricks at shopping centers and schoolyards. But sales slipped, and the company filed for bankruptcy-court protection in 1965. Three years later, Flambeau Inc. in Baraboo, Wis., bought Duncan and now runs the company. To celebrate Duncan's 80th anniversary, the company is resurrecting the yo-yo demonstrations of yore, enlisting 66 yo-yo professionals to conduct more than 130 demonstrations this summer. The yo-yoists are also featured on newly released trading cards.

The current economic downturn has been good for Duncan. The company, which sells more than two-thirds of the yo-yos in the U.S., says sales are up 23% from a year ago. Most of their "bread and butter" yo-yos retail for less than $20, says Mike Burke, spokesman for Duncan.

New Duncan yo-yo models, such as the free-hand Hayabusa or the $499 Freehand Mg made of 99% magnesium, are created by Duncan's yo-yoists. The stringers regularly submit drawings and prototypes of their models.

The company will unroll a new line of high-end yo-yos this summer. They feature wider axles to allow for wiggle room for complex tricks, precision ball-bearings for smooth glides and perfectly weighted casings for an even touch.

Still, Duncan doesn't cut it for some extreme yo-yo practitioners. They build their own.

Brian Roberts, better known in the yo-yo world as "Doctor Popular," is holding on to 100 Bolt yo-yos that he custom designed out of a high-grade plastic called Celcon that's impossible to shatter. Mr. Roberts, of San Francisco, also sports a flaming yo-yo tattoo on his left arm. His right arm is so much larger than his left, because of yo-yoing he says, that the sleeves of some of his T-shirts are too tight.

Mr. Roberts once sold a "Silver Bullet 2" yo-yo to a man who had recently been robbed at gunpoint while working at a gas station in Minnesota. The Bullet is known for its sharp edges, high-end metal body and fast spin. "His boss wouldn't let him get a gun," he says. "I think he thought he was a ninja."

Pat Cuartero, 28, of New York, left a six-figure gig as a technology programmer at Merrill Lynch in 2006 to pursue yo-yoing full time. Before he got out of Wall Street, Mr. Cuartero regularly toted his favorite yo-yos in his suit pockets and in briefcases. He regularly spun two-handed while on conference calls.

Now, he runs a company called YoYoNation that sells yo-yos, organizes competitions and plays host to online discussion forums. Mr. Cuartero, who specializes in two-handed play, boasts palms white with calluses and middle fingers with permanent string indentations. He says that though his wrists ache sometimes, "I've never been happier."

Some yo-yoists still cling to the slower and safer models. Valerie Oliver of Fort Worth, Texas, uses a classic fixed-axle Technic yo-yo when she performs at schools. She started with a Duncan Imperial made of plastic in 1962 when she was 6 years old. Her yo-yo group, the Lone Star Spinners, has met once a month for more than a decade.

Newer models used by the pros don't actually return to the hand when thrown down. That allows for longer string play. "I want my yo-yo to come back when I jerk it," Ms. Oliver says.

An out-of-control yo-yo can cause big trouble. Paul Yath of Lakewood, Calif., shattered his apartment window a couple of winters ago. The cotton string "just snapped" while he was performing a difficult maneuver and shot the metal yo-yo like a bullet across the room. Another time, the four-time national champion took a bloody cut above his brow to the emergency room. He didn't need stitches.

These days, Mr. Yath carries two sets of backup yo-yos when he goes onstage, he says. "You never know when you might hit an unexpected snag," he says.

Although Mr. Schulte, of Brooklyn Park, Minn., says he's accustomed to the numbness in his index finger, he was recently rudely reminded that his face is far from numb. While he was performing a stunt called "the trapeze" before a group of seniors at a nursing home, a snagged string backfired. The metal, sharp-edged yo-yo cut his right cheek. That drew some blood, but in this business, too, the show must go on. "You just keep going," he says.

from WSJ, 7-17-09

In Development: Google Web Browser to Replace Retail Software

Google Inc.'s plans for a new operating system based on its Chrome Web browser is a big bet that online programs can eventually surpass desktop software.

Now the Internet giant is pushing hard to make that happen, enticing developers to take advantage of several technologies to improve the speed, aesthetics and reliability of software running in a Web browser.

Google is trying to spur a new market for software that can run entirely in a Web browser, such as Google Docs. The search giant believes that online applications will be one of its next big businesses, as its core search and search-advertising businesses mature.

But it faces heavy competition, including from rival Microsoft Corp., which Monday announced it will offer online versions of its popular Office software to consumers free.

Web browsers originally were used mainly to view static pages of text and images. Their capabilities for playing video and animation have improved using technologies such as Adobe Systems Inc.'s Flash -- software that is used by Google's YouTube service -- and others that require users to download a program called a plug-in.

But browsers still can't typically handle many chores conventional PC software users take for granted, like some mechanisms for copying and pasting text and playing games that use three-dimensional graphics.

Google hopes to change that by accelerating the adoption of HTML 5, the acronym for an extension of the hypertext markup language that is a foundation of the Web. The proposed programming standards -- which are likely years from being finalized, and include technology from Google and others -- are designed to let developers build more advanced applications that can run within a browser.

A number of software developers and browsers have already incorporated some aspects of HTML 5, such as faster video streaming and storing more data in the browser for faster retrieval -- all without having to download additional software.

Google is actively pushing for inclusion of features such as ability to drag and drop files from a desktop into a Web browser, a PC-style function not typically possible now, and support for 3D graphics, he said.

Google and other backers of HTML 5 believe that over time, plug-ins won't be necessary as browsers become more powerful.

Online software can't typically launch automatically when a computer starts-up or send updates and notifications when users close their Web browsers, he says.

Dozens of companies are also developing technology to bring more parity between desktop and online software.
WSJ 7-13-09

31st Annual Mooning of Amtrak

The pants were down but so was the size of the crowd the annual "Moon Over Amtrak" event in the Orange County's Laguna Niguel, where people line up to moon passing commuter trains.

It began as a bar bet in 1979 and has continued ever since.

About 400 people showed up for Saturday's mass mooning. Last year, about 8,000 showed up, mostly out-of-towners. And deputies shut it down after things got ugly, with traffic jams, drinking and public nudity.

http://moonamtrak.org/

Selling Boxed Software Is Just So Yesterday !

Microsoft is finally planning to offer a free web version of Office in response to Google.

Microsoft provided new details of a plan to offer a free, Web-based version of its Office software, the latest acknowledgment that the company's decades-old model of selling boxed software is fading fast.

The free online offering -- ready in the first half of 2010 along with a new version of its conventional software called Office 2010 -- is the latest milestone in an 18-month-old strategy by the world's largest software supplier to offer more of its core products on the Web.

The nearly ubiquitous Office applications include Word for word processing, the Excel spreadsheet, PowerPoint for presentations and Outlook for email.

By offering lightweight versions of those products that can be used through a Web browser, Microsoft is trying to exploit the popularity of online services without curtailing the profitability of products that are still run on PCs or corporate servers (Good luck, guys !).

It is also hoping to blunt competition from Google, which offers free online applications called Google Docs and last week disclosed plans for an operating system that could compete with Microsoft's Windows, initially on low-priced portable computers called netbooks.

Microsoft, for its part, is trying to muscle in on Google's core market: Internet search advertising. Last month, Microsoft launched a new search site, called Bing, which has drawn more users though Google's service retains a big lead. Microsoft is also working on another project, code-named Gazelle, that is a hybrid of an operating system and Web browser.

Microsoft doesn't break out Office sales, but the products account for the bulk of the $19 billion in sales posted by its business division in fiscal 2008. Stephen Elop, who runs the division, said in an interview that making some of its Office products available free should help the company expand its overall business.

A key advantage of Web-based programs is that they can allow users to tap into their files from any device connected to the Internet, including hardware running non-Microsoft systems such as Linux.

Businesses may like the fact that Office Web avoids the need to install security patches and other labor-intensive support chores, says Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Technologies Associates. "At the enterprise level, this could be quite attractive," he said.

Microsoft, which first confirmed last October that it would launch a free Web offering, said it would be available to consumers through its Windows Live online service.

Businesses can use Office Web through their existing volume licensing programs for Office, or purchase new subscriptions, the company said. It didn't disclose pricing for paid versions of the offering.

Vic Gundotra, Google's vice president of engineering, called Microsoft's announcement "a powerful validation" of the Web.

Before joining Google, Mr. Gundotra was general manager of Microsoft's developer outreach efforts. "I think we will look back on today as a phenomenal day when the Web has won," he said.

By Jessica Hodgson, WSJ, 7-14-09

Bush/Cheney Legacy Dep't: 12 Reasons The Economy Is Even Worse Than The Estimates

The true unemployment rate is now 16.5 % not 9.5 % and headed to 19.1 % by 2010 according to Mort Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report.

We are in far more trouble than the 9.5% unemployment rate indicates when you get inside the numbers.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminary estimate for job losses for June is 467,000, which means 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession.

Here are more 12 reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5% unemployment rate indicates:

1. The cumulative job losses over the last six months have been greater than for any other half year period since World War II, including the military demobilization after the war.

2. The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.

3. The average length of unemployment is higher than it's been since government began tracking the data in 1948.

4. June's total assumed 185,000 people at work who probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation, e.g., finance. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, June will look worse.

5. More companies are asking employees to take unpaid leave. These people don't count on the unemployment roll.

6. No fewer than 1.4 million people wanted or were available for work in the last 12 months but were not counted. Why? Because they hadn't searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.

7. The number of workers taking part-time jobs due to the slack economy, a kind of stealth underemployment, has doubled in this recession to about nine million, or 5.8% of the work force. Add those whose hours have been cut to those who cannot find a full-time job and the total unemployed rises to 16.5%, putting the number of involuntarily idle in the range of 25 million.

8. The average work week for rank-and-file employees in the private sector, roughly 80% of the work force, slipped to 33 hours. That's 48 minutes a week less than before the recession began, the lowest level since the government began tracking such data 45 years ago. Full-time workers are being downgraded to part time as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water, and factories are operating at only 65% of capacity. If Americans were still clocking those extra 48 minutes a week now, the same aggregate amount of work would get done with 3.3 million fewer employees, which means that if it were not for the shorter work week the jobless rate would be 11.7%, not 9.5% (which far exceeds the 8% rate projected by the Obama administration).

9. The average length of official unemployment increased to 24.5 weeks, the longest since government began tracking this data in 1948. The number of long-term unemployed (i.e., for 27 weeks or more) has now jumped to 4.4 million, an all-time high.

10. The average worker saw no wage gains in June, with average compensation running flat at $18.53 an hour.

11. The goods producing sector is losing the most jobs -- 223,000 in the last report alone.

12. The prospects for job creation are equally distressing. The likelihood is that when economic activity picks up, employers will first choose to increase hours for existing workers and bring part-time workers back to full time. Many unemployed workers looking for jobs once the recovery begins will discover that jobs as good as the ones they lost are almost impossible to find because many layoffs have been permanent. Instead of shrinking operations, companies have shut down whole business units or made sweeping structural changes in the way they conduct business. General Motors and Chrysler, closed hundreds of dealerships and reduced brands. Citigroup and Bank of America cut tens of thousands of positions and exited many parts of the world of finance.

Job losses may last well into 2010 to hit an unemployment peak close to 11%. That unemployment rate may be sustained for an extended period.

Can we find comfort in the fact that employment has long been considered a lagging indicator? It is conventionally seen as having limited predictive power since employment reflects decisions taken earlier in the business cycle. But today is different. Unemployment has doubled to 9.5% from 4.8% in only 16 months, a rate so fast it may influence future economic behavior and outlook.

How could this happen when Washington has thrown trillions of dollars into the pot, including the famous $787 billion in stimulus spending that was supposed to yield $1.50 in growth for every dollar spent? For a start, too much of the money went to transfer payments such as Medicaid, jobless benefits and the like that do nothing for jobs and growth. The spending that creates new jobs is new spending, particularly on infrastructure. It amounts to less than 10% of the stimulus package today.

About 40% of U.S. workers believe the recession will continue for another full year, and their pessimism is justified. As paychecks shrink and disappear, consumers are more hesitant to spend and won't lead the economy out of the doldrums quickly enough.

It may have made him unpopular in parts of the Obama administration, but Vice President Joe Biden was right when he said a week ago that the administration misread how bad the economy was and how effective the stimulus would be. It was supposed to be about jobs but it wasn't. The Recovery Act was a single piece of legislation but it included thousands of funding schemes for tens of thousands of projects, and those programs are stuck in the bureaucracy as the government releases the funds with typical inefficiency.

Another $150 billion, which was allocated to state coffers to continue programs like Medicaid, did not add new jobs; hundreds of billions were set aside for tax cuts and for new benefits for the poor and the unemployed, and they did not add new jobs. Now state budgets are drowning in red ink as jobless claims and Medicaid bills climb.

Next year state budgets will have depleted their initial rescue dollars. Absent another rescue plan, they will have no choice but to slash spending, raise taxes, or both. State and local governments, representing about 15% of the economy, are beginning the worst contraction in postwar history amid a deficit of $166 billion for fiscal 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a gap of $350 billion in fiscal 2011.

Households overburdened with historic levels of debt will also be saving more. The savings rate has already jumped to almost 7% of after-tax income from 0% in 2007, and it is still going up. Every dollar of saving comes out of consumption. Since consumer spending is the economy's main driver, we are going to have a weak consumer sector and many businesses simply won't have the means or the need to hire employees. After the 1990-91 recessions, consumers went out and bought houses, cars and other expensive goods. This time, the combination of a weak job picture and a severe credit crunch means that people won't be able to get the financing for big expenditures, and those who can borrow will be reluctant to do so. The paycheck has returned as the primary source of spending.

This process is nowhere near complete and, until it is, the economy will barely grow if it does at all, and it may well oscillate between sluggish growth and modest decline for the next several years until the rebalancing of excessive debt has been completed. Until then, the economy will be deprived of adequate profits and cash flow, and businesses will not start to hire nor race to make capital expenditures when they have vast idle capacity.

No wonder poll after poll shows a steady erosion of confidence in the stimulus. So what kind of second-act stimulus should we look for? Something that might have a real multiplier effect, not a congressional wish list of pet programs. It is critical that the Obama administration not play politics with the issue. The time to get ready for a serious infrastructure program is now. It's a shame Washington didn't get it right the first time.

edited from WSJ, 7-14-09, Mort Zuckerman's editorial

What Can Detroit Learn from the Silicon Valley?

Will the new GM innovate?

Will we catch up with China in new car technology and electric battery design?

According to Intel's former CEO Andy Grove, Detroit can learn that capital intensive, vertically integrated production is a thing of the past.

Will the auto industry's new overseers catch on?

Some clues are offer by the creative destruction of the capital-intensive mainframe computer business which was replaced by the high growth PC industry where the Silicon Valley, U.S.A. still enjoys strategic advantages.

Our government has made heavy investments in the U.S. automobile industry. How should it use its influence? It is a difficult question to answer because it appears that the automobile industry is in the middle of a fundamental transformation. There is a lot of information available on how companies have dealt with major changes in their business environments, but little is known about the transformation of entire industries.

History shows that most companies do not deal well with transformation. One reason has to do with senior managers. They usually "don't get it." They have a difficult time accepting that the future will be vastly different from the present because they rose to power in the old business environment. They excelled in the old environment and didn't acquire skills necessary to operate in the new.

It is also hard for managers to distinguish between an erosion in a company's competitive position and a change in the fundamental nature of an industry. Knowing the difference is one of the most difficult things to do, even though it is among the most important.

The transformation of an entire industry does not happen very often. It only occurs when a number of factors align, such as a change in consumer demand, a shift of parts of the major supply chain from one country to another, and the emergence of key technological changes.

This is what happened in the computer industry in the 1980s and '90s. Previously, each company produced its own mainframe computers using proprietary hardware and software. The company's sales force then sold these complex and expensive products.

The PC changed this. In a period of just a few years, the industry was pulled apart and reassembled. The entire industry began to rely on common hardware elements (microprocessors) and packaged software; selling was handed off to third parties. In business we call this moving from a "vertical" structure (where a company handles its own development, manufacturing and distribution) to a "horizontal" structure (where some companies specialize in building components while others integrate them and handle distribution tasks).

The result was that the computer industry became more dynamic as old participants (such as Burroughs and Digital Equipment) faded away and new types of companies (such as Compaq and Dell) emerged.

Typically, a single company cannot call the shots that transform an industry. But when a government gets as involved as ours has in the U.S. automobile industry, it can end up making transformational decisions.

Imagine if in the middle of the computer transformation the Reagan administration worried about the upheaval and tried to rescue this vital industry by making huge investments in leading mainframe companies. The purpose of such investments would have been to protect the viability of these companies. The effect, however, would have been to put the brakes on transformation and all but ensure that the U.S. would lose its leadership role.

The government's investment in General Motors might be directly helpful if the auto industry only had the recession to contend with. But that is not the case. The industry faces the confluence of a world-wide recession, rising fuel prices, environmental demands, globalization of manufacturing, and, most importantly, technological change involving the very nature of the automobile.

Electric cars have become viable and will likely only become more capable in the future. Components critical to their performance -- batteries and electronic control systems -- are on a rapidly rising technology curve. These technologies are new and therefore capable of improving quickly with incremental investments. By contrast, technologies that have been around a long time, such as the internal combustion engine and the fuel and drive systems built around it, have enjoyed the benefits of decades of development and have limited potential for further improvement.

The result is that there are several factors aligning to bring about a change in the structure of the automobile industry. Electric cars may match the needs of our time better and become more desirable than cars relying on the internal combustion engine. The car industry today is as vertical as the computer industry was before the PC. However, the simplicity of the electric car combined with the standardization of certain components may cause the automobile industry to shift to a horizontal structure. The Internet is already emerging as a key marketing medium for automobiles and is easily adaptable to a horizontal structure.

If such a shift occurs, the success of a producer will depend on how well it takes advantage of the new structure -- whether it can use the mass-producibility and falling cost of batteries and other components better than its competitors.

The U.S. government is investing in the automobile industry with the intention of preventing jobs from being lost. This may improve GM's ability to operate within today's structure. But there is no comparably large investment being made to develop the capabilities that could serve the company in a new era of electric cars.

China appears to be making a different bet. It's not clear precisely how the Chinese government influences industrial strategy. But China is putting a great deal of effort into developing and manufacturing batteries. Essentially, it is betting that it can take the lead in creating the foundation technology of what will likely be the new structure of the auto industry.

Which is the better investment strategy? It is too early to say. In the short term, the U.S. strategy will likely save jobs. The long term is much more problematic. We do not yet know when and if the automobile industry will shift into a horizontal structure. The stakes, however, are very high. The strategic bets being placed by each country may determine which one will end up as the world's leader in automotive technology and manufacturing.

Edited from 7-13-09 WSJ by Andy Grove is the former CEO of Intel Corp.

Google Chrome OS Rolls in Summer 2010

Just as Microsoft was poised to continue its netbook dominance with Windows 7, Google announces an operating system of its own, Google Chrome OS, which will run on both x86 and ARM systems.

The emphasis of the OS is the same as what netbooks were originally designed for: light, Web-based computing. Obviously, Windows XP wasn't designed for such a scenario, but its relative light weight, low cost, and familiarity have made it a big hit with netbook buyers.

Google's new open-source OS will almost certainly beat XP and Windows 7 on cost, and will be lighter weight, but there's no telling how it will be to actually use—and the failure of Linux on netbooks shows that people want to be able to use their netbook OS right out of the box.

Google's blog entry about the OS says: "The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the Web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work."

According to Google, the Chrome OS runs "within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel," and will eventually run on everything from netbooks to full desktop PCs. That's the key differentiator between the full-blown Chrome OS and Google's Android, which will start appearing in netbooks in the next few months (Google says there will be areas of overlap for the two operating systems, netbooks being the main one).

From a developer standpoint, the Chrome OS is good news, because there's basically no new platform to write for—any browser-based app will work with Chrome, just as it will in any browser on any OS.

Google says it is already talking with "multiple OEMs," and that we can expect Chrome netbooks to hit store shelves in the second half of 2010—yup, you've got a year to wait. Will you have Win7 on your netbook by then?

from PC Magazine.com

Google Chrome Taking Aim at Windows

Google Inc.'s plan to build a computer operating system confirms what Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has downplayed for years: The Internet giant is challenging Microsoft Corp. in virtually all its businesses.

The operating system, dubbed Google Chrome OS and announced late Tuesday, is designed to ouflank a giant: Microsoft's Windows, which already runs the vast majority of the world's personal computers. Google now offers rival products in many of Microsoft's major businesses, except for videogame machines and heavy-duty commercial software.

Critics say it's a risky strategy, with 70 % of current applications requiring Microsoft Windows, according to Gatrner analysts. However, this view is based on the marketplace today, instead of where the marketplace is already headed, toward greater use of web-centric devices.

And, while it could prove to be a distraction from Google's main business, selling ads online. Google's revenue growth has slowed dramatically in recent years, so it is may be placing a big bet that its future growth will come from offering online software.

Chrome OS is also trying to redefine the idea of what a computer operating system should be. In a blog post Tuesday night, Google said the operating system would have the ability to boot up and let users get online in just seconds and new security features, addressing sore points for some users of PCs that run Microsoft Windows. Google is also betting customers will gravitate toward online software that requires an Internet connection, as opposed to conventional PC programs that are downloaded and installed.

Mr. Schmidt, a veteran of Sun Microsystems Inc. and Novell Inc., fought bruising battles in the 1990s as the two companies couldn't match Microsoft's advantages in marketing Windows.

In an interview Wednesday, Mr. Schmidt said he isn't obsessed with competing with Microsoft, and that the company's strategy is to create new markets for online applications. "This is about opening up a whole new area," he said. "Google is not about doing the same thing that everyone else has done," he said. He also said it is natural for Google to think about competing with Microsoft but that doing so takes up "very little" of his time. Microsoft declined to comment about the new Google software. But some people familiar with the matter have said Mr. Schmidt has tried to dent Microsoft's business throughout his tenure at Google.

From roughly 2003 to 2005, Mr. Schmidt convened regular secret meetings of a small group of executives to discuss how to best compete with Microsoft in specific product areas, an effort code-named "Canada," according to people familiar with the meetings. He was quick to try to foil Microsoft's plans to acquire Yahoo Inc. last year, calling then-Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang to offer help fending off Microsoft's hostile takeover attempt, say other people familiar with the matter.

Google's focus on Microsoft partly grew out of longstanding concerns that it would undermine Google's business by making it tough for Google to offer a search toolbar on the Internet Explorer Web browser, according to several former employees.

Google's work on a Web browser and operating system dates back many years, according to people briefed on the projects. Google co-founder Larry Page has long wanted to release a Web browser and accompanying software, say these people, in order to build faster and more powerful Web-based technology. But Mr. Schmidt held him back, arguing that Google ought to continue to focus on search and search advertising for now and wait to strike later, these people said.

In September 2008, Google introduced its own browser, similarly named Chrome, to compete with Microsoft's market-leading Internet Explorer. Now, Google is essentially building its new operating-system software around its Chrome browser, supported by core programming code from the Linux operating system.

The approach, Google engineers argue, means that any application designed to run with a standard Web browser will automatically run on Chrome OS as well as on other major browsers and operating systems. The advantage is that Google instantly will start with a built-in base of programmers.

Chrome OS is being designed to run both on machines powered by the PC chips popularized by Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. as well as designs licensed by ARM Holdings PLC that are normally used in cellphones.

ARM chips are trying to push into the market for low-cost netbook computers. ARM-based machines could be considerably less expensive and offer longer battery life, says Ramesh Iyer, head of world-wide business development for mobile computing at Texas Instruments Inc., an ARM backer that is working with Google on the operating system.

More broadly, Chrome OS could add to the forces lined up against the so-called "Wintel" juggernaut -- the slang term for the technology standard based on Microsoft's Windows software and Intel's chips that created a massive industry. Some observers also see Google Chrome helping to accelerate a shift in the PC industry to become more like the cellphone industry, with hardware and software largely subsidized by carriers charging monthly service fees. Some netbooks are already being offered this way.

"Obviously the loser in this is people in the PC industry who think high-priced hardware and high-priced software are the future," said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, a nonprofit group that helps oversee the evolution of free or low-cost Linux-based operating systems.

Intel has also been promoting a variant of Linux called Moblin for use in netbooks and other products. Intel says it was aware of Google's Chrome OS. "We applaud Google's move here," an Intel spokesman said in prepared remarks. "More choice in this area will benefit the industry and likely speed innovation."

Google's approach comes with special obstacles. For one thing, Web-based based software usually runs on a remote server, not on the user's local PC; therefore, a netbook running Chrome OS isn't likely to be able to do much when it is not connected to the Internet, says Al Gillen, an analyst at IDC. Though many applications will eventually migrate online, some parts of the world don't have wireless broadband connections to support this kind of software.

Google's Chrome browser, meanwhile, hasn't become a big hit. It had less than 2% market share in May, according to Net Applications, a market-research firm, compared to 65.5% for Microsoft's Internet Explorer and 22.5% for the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser.

The concept of using a Web browser for software development was debated in the 1990s, during the fight involving browser pioneer Netscape Communications that led the Justice Department to bring a high-profile antitrust case against Microsoft. Microsoft executives competed aggressively against Netscape browsers, which they viewed as a major threat to weaken Windows' influence over software developers.

The Chrome OS appears tightly linked to the Chrome Web browser, but Chrome's market share is tiny, and there's no clear link between areas where Google could be considered dominant -- search and online advertising -- and the new operating system.

edited from WSJ - 07/09/09