Over the course of 10 years in technology journalism and 10 years before that working in the IT industry, I have developed a knee-jerk anti-hype reaction.

When a new product or technology is announced and the world of IT experts cranks instantly into hyperbole, it equally instantly brings out in me a degree of cynicism.

Today’s “announcement” of Google’s plan to build a Chrome operating system (OS) is currently having just that affect.

For one thing it’s a blog post, rather than any formal product announcement, on which Google will not comment further – suggesting that at this stage there is not much else to say. The timing – as Microsoft gears up to launch Windows 7 later this year and is due to preview its Azure cloud development system this week – is pretty much indicative of good old-fashioned guerilla marketing.

Then there’s the over-the-top reaction to anything Google does.

Take this example – Rob Enderle, a reasonably well respected US analyst, told the BBC: "This announcement is huge. This is the first time we have had a truly competitive OS on the market in years. This is potentially disruptive and is the first real attempt by anyone to go after Microsoft.”

Can you count the ways this comment is just so wrong? Without wishing to criticise Rob himself – I’m attacking the hyperbole of which his statement is just one example - let me help.

“Huge”? Again, it’s a blog post, there is very little real detail, every gap is filled in by pure speculation.

“The first truly competitive OS market in years”? For one, Chrome OS doesn’t actually exist, it won’t be available for at least a year, so isn’t much of a competitor to anyone just yet. Plus I’m sure Linux advocates might have something to say too.

“The first real attempt by anyone to go after Microsoft”? I think even the European Union competition commission would admit that Microsoft does actually have a few competitors. And I’m sure Apple Mac users would be just as vociferous as Linux fans in extolling the competitive benefits of their products.

Without a doubt Chrome OS is an interesting development, one that has been on the cards for some time. It’s a natural evolution of what Google has been doing with tools such as Gears and the Chrome web browser (which, by the way, remains a distant fourth in the browser market with just two per cent share).

But I can’t honestly imagine any IT leader worth their salt will seriously spend the next 12 months waiting for Chrome OS to appear before evaluating whether or not to move to Windows 7. And besides, Microsoft's research teams are already working on a project called Gazelle that seems to be going down similar lines of a brower-oriented OS.

Your usual tech crowd of anti-Microsoft enthusiasts will lap up Chrome OS as soon as it appears of course. And equally, any IT leader worth their salt will take a look and test how well the system works with their business applications and see if there are some users for whom it might be appropriate as a low-cost (presumably – no pricing or licensing details yet) alternative for netbook users who just need basic web access.

The emerging competition in enterprise software between Google and Microsoft promises to be fascinating battle – one driven by ideology as much as technology. Google will be trying to convince people they do not need a big function-rich desktop operating system, while Microsoft wants to prove that Windows is the best way into the cloud.

But let’s at least wait until both companies have some actual products to evaluate, rather than exploding with excitement at the slightest hint of Googlejam tomorrow.

PS – One interesting aspect of the Chrome OS announcement was pointed out by RedMonk analyst James Governor on his Twitter feed today. If Chrome OS is a genuine competitor to Windows, will the EU now revisit its anti-trust case against Microsoft in the light of Google’s plans? Given that Microsoft has been forced to offer Windows 7 without a browser pre-installed, with Google be also told to sell Chrome OS without the Chrome browser? It won’t of course, but it does highlight some of the flaws in the EU case.