Google Intros 2nd-Gen Chromebook, Chromebox

[exfileme]

Google and Samsung have launched second-generation Chrome OS products.

Google Intros 2nd-Gen Chromebook, Chromebox : Read more

 

[kawininjazx]

I don't see these catching on.

 

[felipetga]

For these prices I would get one with Windows 8 and multi touch enabled...

 

[Stardude82]

They are all about $100 over priced...

 

[eddieroolz]

Keep throwing your money at the problem, maybe it will fix itself....

What a mid-90s Microsoft mentality.

 

[jerm1027]

Seriously, Celerons? Google should have waited on these to make use of a low-end Ivy Bridge CPU. Better effeciency and a much more powerful HD4000 graphics engine. Furthermore, these things are hardly affordable considering the abnormally low-speced and dated hardware. The Celeron is a stripped down bare-bone Sandy Bridge CPU paired with a crippled HD 2000 graphics engine, not HD 3000, that doesn't even offer the basic Clear Video HD (decodes video and post processing with GPU). Knock the price down to

 

[CaedenV]

At work we have these old eMachines PCs that come in for recycling... you know what they say on the case?
"Never Obsolete"

... makes you think a bit

 

[Guest]

Overall it's hard where is pretty dated. Why bother? I wouldn't buy one for 300$.

 

[Guest]

Chromebooks are looking better all the time...

 

[alidan]

here is the thing

either make this a streaming service, where the laptop is mearly an access point, and the hardware is just a means to an end, or dont make it at all.

imagine if you could do something like onlive, but for a desktop computer. install whatever you want on their end, it makes your computer vurtural, and when needed, could use several times the power you would normally get in a notebook.

this thing is to underpowered to be a stand alone device, and is to over powered to be just a gateway...

if google really wants to move forward, they should make these cloud devices, they would be cheap, and possibly use a subscription of 50-100$ a year, but you would have the equivilant power of a 2000$ desktop when you need it.

 

[southernshark]

Oooo neato... a Celeron Notebook ... I didn't know they still made Celerons... with a subpar/ always connected operating system...

Who would buy this crap?

 

[ithurtswhenipee]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]here is the thingeither make this a streaming service, where the laptop is mearly an access point, and the hardware is just a means to an end, or dont make it at all.imagine if you could do something like onlive, but for a desktop computer. install whatever you want on their end, it makes your computer vurtural, and when needed, could use several times the power you would normally get in a notebook. this thing is to underpowered to be a stand alone device, and is to over powered to be just a gateway...if google really wants to move forward, they should make these cloud devices, they would be cheap, and possibly use a subscription of 50-100$ a year, but you would have the equivilant power of a 2000$ desktop when you need it.[/citation]

Maybe I misunderstood the whole chrome OS from the beginning, but I thought it was a cloud based deal. I remember seeing adverts for it showing a chromebook being destoyed, a new one being unboxed and getting logged-into continuing to work without missing a beat. Seems like an "access point" type of system to me.

 

[ithurtswhenipee]

Not seeing the point of the chromebox. Unless you just love chrome that much, I thought the point was to have a stripped down, super fast mobile platform with long battery life. When you are on a desk tied to a monitor/keyboard/mouse/wall outlet, I would think that a full on OS with some future proofed hardware specs would make more sense.

 

[fulle]

I'm confused as to WHY I would want one of these.

 

[artk2219]

[citation][nom]jerm1027[/nom]Seriously, Celerons? Google should have waited on these to make use of a low-end Ivy Bridge CPU. Better effeciency and a much more powerful HD4000 graphics engine. Furthermore, these things are hardly affordable considering the abnormally low-speced and dated hardware. The Celeron is a stripped down bare-bone Sandy Bridge CPU paired with a crippled HD 2000 graphics engine, not HD 3000, that doesn't even offer the basic Clear Video HD (decodes video and post processing with GPU). Knock the price down to[/citation]


Celerons? They would have done better to couple these with amd's lower to mid end A4's or A6's they would have given them better battery life too, especially if theyre trying to push them as media and web devices, they obviously arent meant for the high end. In the end they probably would have gotten better deals on the chips too.

 

[Guest]

Better battery life? Not sure abuot that one. Celerons are pretty darned efficient artk.

 

[stingray71]

From what I've read corporate world is liking these. Auto update/backup, and relatively easy to use and cheap. Chrome OS is evolving nicely, once the Office Suite evolves a bit more, I can start seeing these taking off in the business world.

 

[jhansonxi]

These aren't bad for thin clients but I would like to be able to use them with a private cloud instead of having to rely on Google.

 

[gallidorn]

Why don't they use an ARM Processor instead of a Celeron? They would be able to build the devices at considerable less cost. Then they would be able to price this competitively.

Nobody is going to want to pay full price for outdated parts.

 

[jerm1027]

[citation][nom]artk2219[/nom]Celerons? They would have done better to couple these with amd's lower to mid end A4's or A6's they would have given them better battery life too, especially if theyre trying to push them as media and web devices, they obviously arent meant for the high end. In the end they probably would have gotten better deals on the chips too.[/citation]
My initial thoughts also was "Why not AMD APU's?" but then I realized most of the web still ignores GPU, especially on Linux. Even Google's MapsGL doesn't support AMD GPU's on Linux platforms (I have the c-60 on my netbook). Chrome OS is the web-browser on top of a bare linux kernel. The dated "Stars" CPU architecture doesn't help the Llano APU's either. However, there is a case to made for Trinity though. Even if GPU acceleration is limited on Linux platforms, the enhanced Bulldozer modules in Trinity would still offer solid performance at a lower cost vs Intel. Particularly so with Linux, because thread scheduling isn't much of issue with Linux from what I've heard. In short, Bulldozer runs better on Linux vs Windows.

Either way, Google should have waited for the newer hardware before releasing the second generation of Chromebooks. It would have had been much more appealing and cost effective.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]ithurtswhenipee[/nom]Maybe I misunderstood the whole chrome OS from the beginning, but I thought it was a cloud based deal. I remember seeing adverts for it showing a chromebook being destoyed, a new one being unboxed and getting logged-into continuing to work without missing a beat. Seems like an "access point" type of system to me.[/citation]

the save features are more or less cloud based. but thats it.
what i want to see is the laptops cost 200$ and just be full on onlive like things, where all the processing is done away from the computer.

now i apparently got negitive votes because ill assume that they thought i meant all computers should be like that. i dont, i hate the idea of cloud based computing, but for the case of chromebooks, i think its the only way the product could be viable.

 

[alextheblue]

ChromeOS hardware - yesterday's hardware at today's prices!

They are still overpriced and underpowered, especially when you consider that you can get similar hardware in that price range with a full Windows license.