Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Google Introduces Haswell Chromebooks

Tags:
  • Google
  • Intel
  • Chrome
  • Notebooks
  • CPUs
  • Laptops
Last response: in News comments
Share
September 12, 2013 5:26:55 PM

How have Chromebooks typically sold? I haven't seen anyone use one. Did they need/would they benefit from a haswell processor? The computers don't even run stand-alone programs for the most part, so I can't fathom what sort of processing power they'd need beyond capable video playback/acceleration.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 12, 2013 5:42:38 PM

teh_chem said:
How have Chromebooks typically sold? I haven't seen anyone use one. Did they need/would they benefit from a haswell processor? The computers don't even run stand-alone programs for the most part, so I can't fathom what sort of processing power they'd need beyond capable video playback/acceleration.


The Samsung series 3 Chromebook is currently the #1 selling notebook on Amazon. I picked mine up open item from best buy for $200 and it's the best money I've ever spent. It's thin, lightweight, and fast. I use most of Google's services anyway so the Chromebook comes naturally to me. In fact, aside from Gaming the occasional photo editing it nearly replaces my Lenovo Y400 (a great laptop and I feel bad for letting it go days at a time without use).

Mine has the dual core Samsung ARM SOC with 2GB of RAM and it performs just fine. I can stream Netflix and it can play any web game I've tried so far. It's not unusual for me to have 6-8 browser tabs open at once. Knowing this, a Haswell chip seems way overkill in this purpose. I would think that Bay Trail would be a lot more suited for the tasks a Chromebook would ask of it.

The only performance issue I've noticed is the inability to stream a Netflix browser tab to my Chromecast without some lag. The Chromecast plug-in even tells me my system is holding back performance. That's my only complaint as this thing would be great for that purpose.






Score
6
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2013 10:16:51 PM

Since it x86, I wonder if you could load Windows on them...
Score
1
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 12, 2013 10:34:36 PM

nitrium said:
Since it x86, I wonder if you could load Windows on them...


You can't. Chromebooks are locked down to specifically prevent that. Why would anyone want to though?
Score
-1
September 12, 2013 10:57:33 PM

JD88 said:
nitrium said:
Since it x86, I wonder if you could load Windows on them...


You can't. Chromebooks are locked down to specifically prevent that. Why would anyone want to though?


Windows software maybe? Personally, I would rather use mint or ubuntu to easily interface with my home server, as well as access a plethora of high quality applications. If I could install Windows, it would be great fun to program on this using Visual Studio, then remotely compile them on my Desktop using the server ability.
Score
0
September 12, 2013 10:58:31 PM

JD88, plenty of people Bootcamp their Macs to get Windows, why would a Chromebook user be any more zealous? If Google starts going down the road of preventing users putting whatever software they want on their hardware then how is that different than all the anti-trust garbage that MS had to go through
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 12, 2013 11:04:41 PM

back_by_demand said:
JD88, plenty of people Bootcamp their Macs to get Windows, why would a Chromebook user be any more zealous? If Google starts going down the road of preventing users putting whatever software they want on their hardware then how is that different than all the anti-trust garbage that MS had to go through


There are cheap Windows laptops in a similar price range. Additionally, Windows would require more than the 16GB included storage, not to mention what an abomination it would be.

It's not Google's hardware, these are OEM devices. In fact, Google is known for releasing it's hardware with unlocked bootloaders just in the sense of freedom of choice. Just look at the Nexus line.
Score
0
September 12, 2013 11:10:02 PM

F**k Google, and the Chromebook
Score
-2
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 12, 2013 11:16:40 PM

back_by_demand said:
F**k Google, and the Chromebook


That's what Ballmer says every morning when he wakes up surrounded by piles of unsold Surfaces.
Score
4
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2013 11:29:25 PM

JD88 said:
There are cheap Windows laptops in a similar price range. Additionally, Windows would require more than the 16GB included storage, not to mention what an abomination it would be.

What absolute TOTAL uninformed rubbish. I have Windows 7 Basic installed on a 4 GB SSD on my EEE 901. You're reading that right, FOUR GB - something that just about every EEE 901 user has done if they're not using Linux. Sure the EEE 901 also has a 16 GB (super slow) SSD that you have to install apps on (which would be slower than any current 16GB memory key), but it works just fine. A 16GB Chrome Book with Haswell would be FANTASTIC for Win 7 plus a few apps (e.g. Office).

Score
1
September 12, 2013 11:41:56 PM

There are better laptops, sure they cost more, but I am less interested in giving money to bottom-feeders. Plus with a Windows machine I get to use the 6.5 million strong software back catalogue. Oh, and all of Googles services too, seeing as they all run on Windows.
Score
0
September 12, 2013 11:50:15 PM

Whilst you are dissing Surface sales, see if you can find how many Chromebooks have been sold, despite the pathetic figures for the RT I will lay even money MS have still sold more.
Score
-1
September 13, 2013 12:36:21 AM

"The hope is that Haswell will boost battery life without affecting performance. "

Without affecting performance? Because core i series processors, along with the Haswell architecture, are known for their horrible performance especially when compared to the atom, celeron and ARM processors traditionally found in Chromebooks... (Very harsh sarcasm for those of you who don't detect it over the internet)

Somehow the inflection of that statement seems a bit off. If anything, it should read "The hope is that it will give just as good or better battery life with even better performance."
Score
1
September 13, 2013 2:20:35 AM

JD88 said:
nitrium said:
Since it x86, I wonder if you could load Windows on them...


You can't. Chromebooks are locked down to specifically prevent that. Why would anyone want to though?


Actually, Chromebooks are not locked down to Chrome OS. You can install a custom OS, however you will get a warning screen every boot up. It still wont run Windows because it expects UEFI or BIOS, not u-Boot. But it's not locked down, Windows is just by design incompatible with it.
Score
1
September 13, 2013 5:21:54 AM

Azz156, many thanks, i'll collect my winnings from JD88 and buy him a large humble pie, he can have it as a starter before the main course of eating crow
Score
-1
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 13, 2013 8:19:32 AM

I think you misunderstood my comment. Never once did I claim the success or relative advantage of Chrome OS over RT or the surface or whatever.

Having said that, Chrome OS is a minor side project that hasn't really cost Google much of anything VS the $900 million Surface debacle but I digress.

I have a Chromebook and a 2 Win 8 Pro machines so I'm hardly anti-Microsoft. I do think Win RT is a completely unnecessary product given where Intel and AMD are with x86 chips currently.

My entire point was the Chrome OS has some very strong merit through simplicity and I wouldn't want to ruin that by installing bloated Windows. Google isn't trying to make money on Chrome OS, it's trying to encourage the development of web apps for the Chrome browser.

Score
0
September 13, 2013 8:51:25 AM

"I think you misunderstood my comment. Never once did I claim the success or relative advantage of Chrome OS over RT or the surface or whatever."
However, you said this:-
"The Samsung series 3 Chromebook is currently the #1 selling notebook on Amazon. I picked mine up open item from best buy for $200 and it's the best money I've ever spent."
But then went on to say:-
"That's what Ballmer says every morning when he wakes up surrounded by piles of unsold Surfaces."

Now, i'm no English Professor, but I think I can spot when someone is telling fibs
Score
-2
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 13, 2013 9:15:52 AM

I said that in response to your juvenile comments toward Google. It wasn't a comparison to Chrome OS. Regardless of how the Chromebook is doing, it doesn't change the abyssal failure that was (and looks like is going to be again) the Surface RT. Android is beating the Surface, that's not (and never was) the job of Chrome to begin with.

I don't understand how Microsoft thinks releasing the same product they just lost $900 million on again with a slightly faster processor is going to change anything. If they released the RT form factor with an Intel Bay Trail or AMD Temash chip running full x86 Windows, I think they would have a big hit on their hands. The problem with Microsoft currently is that they have no plan or direction. They, (similar to the post-Jobs apple) are becoming a largely reactive company.
Score
0
September 13, 2013 9:43:17 AM

azz156 said:
hahaha there are 5 windows rt users for ever 1 chromebook user. why don't they ditch it in favour of a desktop android, makes sense.

http://www.geek.com/news/chromebook-sales-are-terrible-...


Android and Chrome OS are two different things. They both run Linux kernels and are backed by Google, but that's pretty much where similarities end.

Android is designed as a general purpose mobile OS, running apps in a Dalvik Virtual Machine.
Chrome OS is designed to boot and run Google Chrome as fast and secure as possible, without having to consider compatibility with third party software.

While you could install Android on a laptop, there are many GNU/Linux distributions that would be more suitable for the purpose.
Score
1
September 13, 2013 10:15:28 AM

Whoopie, 100GB of online storage! With 200MB data per month. Oh and the speeds will be probably somewhere under 1Mb/s, at least in this country.
Score
0
September 13, 2013 12:10:59 PM

The chromebook kind of requires a learning curve. I like the IDEA that it's all chrome-based, but it's not as versatile as I'd like. Love Google, but still like Windows. Sorry.
Score
-1
September 13, 2013 3:34:49 PM

I wonder how many people say "Chromebooks are AWESOME! I LOVE them!" while still going bananas with glee pointing out that Windows RT doesn't run x86 apps...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 13, 2013 7:01:25 PM

I’m one of those people. First off, the Surface does not compete with the Chromebook, it competes in the $500 range with high end Android tablets, the iPad, and mid range laptops. The Chromebook is a sub $300 netbook.

The primary benefit to running Windows is having access to x86 apps. That’s the Windows advantage over Apple and Android. Without that, you’re comparing a tablet with relatively low end specs that was priced outrageously high for what it offered to well established contenders. $450 plus $100 for a flimsy keyboard cover? A much smaller app ecosystem combined with high end price for low end specs meant failure for the first Surface RT and things haven’t changed with the second one.

All of this goes without mentioning similar products that other OEM manufacturers were coming up with running full Windows, proving it could be done. In fact, the new Asus T100 absolutely destroys the Surface in terms of value.
Score
0
September 14, 2013 7:56:13 PM

First off, to people who say Haswell is unnecessary; Haswell requires less power, increasing battery life, and also has great integrated graphics. Chromebooks can benefit from both.

And to others complaining about app support; Chromebooks should be sufficient for most everyone but the market hypes up the top line products. Most people use only the web browser and basic apps. Chrome isn't really supposed to be a replacement but it can be used very strategic. It is very fast for one because windows is very hardware intense, Chromium not so much. Chromebooks are great for surfing, video watching and even word processing is absolutely fine.

Chromebooks are absolutely fine if you're in the market for one, and this step to add Haswell is nice.
Score
0
September 15, 2013 6:28:17 AM

JD88 said:
I’m one of those people. First off, the Surface does not compete with the Chromebook, it competes in the $500 range with high end Android tablets, the iPad, and mid range laptops. The Chromebook is a sub $300 netbook.

The primary benefit to running Windows is having access to x86 apps. That’s the Windows advantage over Apple and Android. Without that, you’re comparing a tablet with relatively low end specs that was priced outrageously high for what it offered to well established contenders. $450 plus $100 for a flimsy keyboard cover? A much smaller app ecosystem combined with high end price for low end specs meant failure for the first Surface RT and things haven’t changed with the second one.

All of this goes without mentioning similar products that other OEM manufacturers were coming up with running full Windows, proving it could be done. In fact, the new Asus T100 absolutely destroys the Surface in terms of value.


The Asus T100 you say? Well darned' tootin', I think I'll go out and pick one of those up right now!!!!.... Except the tablet you used to say destroys the Surface in value doesn't exist for commercial sale yet and won't for over another month. When you're talking about tablet value for items to buy, could you make some effort to restrict the list to mostly things you can buy?

Trust me, I'm not a Surface fanboy or an MS aficionado who will choose Surface just because it's *so cool* and all my friends will like me. In fact, I went with the Acer Iconia W700 in January because it was a better value at the time - and still is - than the Surface Pro.

Flash back to about a month and a half ago. My previous laptop, an Asus G73 that primarily functioned as my desktop, died, and I was left stuck using my Iconia W700 as my primary device and since my gaming needs have tapered off tremendously, I didn't feel the need to get a machine that traded portability and battery for power. So the Iconia W700, hooked into my big screen TV, became my "desktop."

But, as a policy, I do not like to use my "main" PC for travel other than every once in a while, because the bumping and banging of travel tends to eventually wear on machines and when your primary work device dies suddenly, you're left with a very unfortunate scramble trying to pick up the pieces. So, I went out in search of another laptop or tablet that would suit my needs which were:

1) full Office for work, not some rinky-dink apps or online-only alternative.
2) Skydrive desktop app style support, not the half-arsed Skydrive app that I had seen before
3) very light, long battery life (6 hours minimum)
4) HDMI output through micro-HDMI, since I've got a setup tailored for that right now
5) ran Netflix and at least 720p video without stutter
6) Under $500

So, I went out a searching. Go figure, I didn't see the Asus T100 around, so it didn't get a try. I did see the Acer Iconia W3, a sub $350 Windows pro tablet, so I gave that a try - and it was *terrible*. Apparently the Iconia W700 represented a one-time inspiration at Acer of "Hey guys, let's build something that isn't total garbage and see how that does." I tried out a few Ultrabooks but they were either too expensive or made me realize that I really liked the tablet form factor. I event tried a few sub $300 Android tablets, since my Le Pan II is still kicking and getting some pleasant use, I'm not ready to *entirely* give up on Android yet. Then I tried the just price-dropped Surface RT... And was very pleasantly surprised.

Unsure, I spoke to the guy at Best Buy and he told me that if I picked it up I could return it any time within two weeks for a full refund. So, I picked one up, took it home, and unhooked my Iconia from my micro-HDMI cable and hooked the Surface into the TV. For video, browsing, and word processing, it was great, so I set up a recovery disk, upgraded to the Windows RT 8.1 preview, and ran it for a day or two as my home "computer." It did not disappoint as a media consumption device in almost any way for my day to day needs other than not being able to tinker on my Magic the Gathering Online decks. I took it on the go, working at some coffee shops, and found it had great battery life, Skydrive performed in every way I wanted it to with 8.1, the word processing/excel work was seamless, as was the Skydrive syncing - something I've never had any Google associated device make good on. I was very pleased and I've kept it, perfectly happy with the functionality of the device as a work machine with just a bit of fun on the side. It may be trumped for value in a month from now, but I can't work on the go with a tablet that isn't out for a month for now come Monday.

All this is kind of beside the point though. Frankly, if that Asus T100 isn't a hardware lemon like the Acer W3, it will be a notably better value than the RT and I may well pick one up for my girlfriend for Christmas - but it ain't out yet, and a few minutes tinkering with the W3 will quickly tell you that a device being well designed and not using the cheapest parts in every area to keep price down *matters*. But this is all beside the point... My comment was about Windows RT, not specific hardware, but that's exactly what you brought up.

RT devices have never had exceptional price points, and the only time they've even only approached the "good" price point when they are on the verge of becoming obsolete. The thing is, at $350 a month ago for a device like the Surface, I'd happily pit it against any Android device out there and *especially* a stripped down Google Chromebook. And, say "the RT wasn't intended to compete with the Chromebook!" all you want, but when went into those stores looking for a device to fill my needs, the Chromebook was directly competing with the Surface RT for the money in my wallet. It failed that competition. As per the comment you responded to, if you harp on RT for not running x86 apps but don't harp on Chromebook for having such a horribly, horribly limited number of things it can actually do, you're pretty much a hypocrite, and the whole "but it wasn't meant to compete!" thing is just a little sad. Again, look at you - I make some snarky comment to that effect, and not once do you defend Chromebook's similar but more severely hamstrung ability to actually do most things a regular computer does, and instead go right off talking about how the Surface RT - a very specific piece of hardware - is going to be a worse value than another Windows device in over a month from now.

As an end user, grand marketing strategies of mega tech corporations really shouldn't be something that concerns you all that much unless you have stock with them. For devices you might actually use, do you really justify your purchase with "well, it wasn't *meant* to compete with device X" rather than "it did this and this and this for me that device X didn't, and the price was similar."

As for the primary benefit of running Windows being x86 apps... Not necessarily, any more. The Surface RT runs a seamless version of Office, something that no Android or iOS device can claim - though, I haven't tried the new Apps, as I understand it they're basically just the watered down web version of Office. And yes, I ran an Android device - Le Pan II - for my mobile notetaking for almost two years, and neither Google Docs nor any of the Office knock-off aps I tried (Docs2go, Kingsoft, etc etc) hold a candle to the real thing. Also, it multitasks *way* better than either of those competitors. I've found every App I've needed in the Windows store now

Two months from now, I expect there to be no reason to buy a Surface RT at $350. The Surface 2 better come at that price or less to really be an equivalent value of some of the competing devices coming out too - quite possibly the A100. The thing is, the Windows RT operating system isn't what is holding this back, but rather the price. Windows RT is a great media consumption OS with an edge over other tablet OS's in multitasking, and it is *far* better for work if you use Office. If you do everything in Google docs and not regular .doc, I would NOT recommend it, but people who actually have to interact with the rest of the world usually find Google docs problematic after not too long. Windows RT stacks up pretty darned well against the competing tablet OS's - now, if the prices of the devices it goes onto follow suite, it might pick up more significantly. As is, for $350 a month ago, I couldn't find a more well rounded machine than the Surface RT when considering portability, Office based work functionality, and media consumption. After a months of Windows RT use, which follows years of Android use and tinkering with a Chromebook, I consider RT to be a superior operating platform for my needs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 15, 2013 12:31:00 PM

stevejnb,

I'm not going to quote your post because it's long and I have a hard time even understanding some parts of it.

I'm going to make 3 major points.

1. The Surface RT with a keyboard cover is currently $450 (was $550 for most of it's life). The average price of a Chromebook is less than $250. That means I could buy two for the price of one. The Chromebook is not the RT's competition. The iPad, high end Android tablets, and full Windows 8 devices in the same price range are. It does not compare favorably to any of those. It's can't beat IOS and Android for the app ecosystem or in terms of pure specs, and why would anyone choose it over comparable full x86 Windows laptops and tablets?

2. Windows RT has absolutely no reason to exist and many OEM manufacturers have publicly stated this. With the newest Intel and AMD x86 chips matching or beating ARM in terms of performance and power consumption in these larger tablet form factors. Why Microsoft would cram another Nvidia ARM chip in there is beyond me. It confuses people and makes no sense.

As far as me being a hypocrite, I find the Chromebook more useful for my needs just as you like Win RT, whatever. I'm not saying you're wrong for that. However, there has to be a reason why Microsoft took nearly a billion dollars in losses on these things. Yeah they're overpriced but I'm not convinced that's the only part of the story.

3. What Microsoft needs to do is merge the surprisingly good Windows Phone platform with RT for phones and tablets under 9". No one is going to be using the desktop for serious productivity at those sizes anyway. It will be primarily content consumption which is fine. Use those ARM chips where they can shine, not where they are powering desktop Windows.

Then, give an option on x86 Win 8.x devices as to whether to have the metro start screen on or off based on the form factor of the PC and environment it will be used it. Also, allow metro apps to be launched to the desktop in windowed mode. I don't even use the Netflix app on my desktop because I like to have the windowed version up when I'm doing other tasks. Limiting them to full screen or that sidebar on a big desktop or decent sized notebook is worthless. Microsoft claims to be about productivity yet they limit multitasking in such a big way.

Do these things Microsoft and you can come back swinging. Or launch the Surface 2 with Tegra 4, charge $550 for it with a fabric "type cover" and lose another billion.
Score
0
September 16, 2013 12:03:37 PM

JD88 said:
stevejnb,

I'm not going to quote your post because it's long and I have a hard time even understanding some parts of it.

I'm going to make 3 major points.

1. The Surface RT with a keyboard cover is currently $450 (was $550 for most of it's life). The average price of a Chromebook is less than $250. That means I could buy two for the price of one. The Chromebook is not the RT's competition. The iPad, high end Android tablets, and full Windows 8 devices in the same price range are. It does not compare favorably to any of those. It's can't beat IOS and Android for the app ecosystem or in terms of pure specs, and why would anyone choose it over comparable full x86 Windows laptops and tablets?

2. Windows RT has absolutely no reason to exist and many OEM manufacturers have publicly stated this. With the newest Intel and AMD x86 chips matching or beating ARM in terms of performance and power consumption in these larger tablet form factors. Why Microsoft would cram another Nvidia ARM chip in there is beyond me. It confuses people and makes no sense.

As far as me being a hypocrite, I find the Chromebook more useful for my needs just as you like Win RT, whatever. I'm not saying you're wrong for that. However, there has to be a reason why Microsoft took nearly a billion dollars in losses on these things. Yeah they're overpriced but I'm not convinced that's the only part of the story.

3. What Microsoft needs to do is merge the surprisingly good Windows Phone platform with RT for phones and tablets under 9". No one is going to be using the desktop for serious productivity at those sizes anyway. It will be primarily content consumption which is fine. Use those ARM chips where they can shine, not where they are powering desktop Windows.

Then, give an option on x86 Win 8.x devices as to whether to have the metro start screen on or off based on the form factor of the PC and environment it will be used it. Also, allow metro apps to be launched to the desktop in windowed mode. I don't even use the Netflix app on my desktop because I like to have the windowed version up when I'm doing other tasks. Limiting them to full screen or that sidebar on a big desktop or decent sized notebook is worthless. Microsoft claims to be about productivity yet they limit multitasking in such a big way.

Do these things Microsoft and you can come back swinging. Or launch the Surface 2 with Tegra 4, charge $550 for it with a fabric "type cover" and lose another billion.


JD88,

I'm noticing two trends. The first is Last time you compared the Surface RT to tablets that aren't even released yet, and now you're comparing it's price point from months ago to the price points of existing prices for other devices. Try and pretend for a second that we are talking about today, September 16th, where the Surface RT costs $350 - not $450 or $550 or whatever other price you want to throw out. You say "the average price of Chromebook is less than $250" and that you could buy "two for the same price" but again, you're operating on price points which do not exist any more. Saying that you can buy two Chromebooks for the price of a Surface RT is simply false. What's more, looking up "Chromebook" on Amazon, I see only one model selling for under $250, and several selling for about the same price as the RT. I've got to ask, how did you come up with your average price of $250?

And for the record, I don't have any sort of touch or type cover for my Surface opting for a bluetooth keyboard instead. Pretending like either cover is part of the price rather than an optional addition is, again, just a false way to try and inflate the price, which you are doing without a hint that you don't actually need the covers at all.

Second, you spend a *lot* of time talking about these products in the context of how Microsoft of Google can make them successes based on their marketing plans. I'm wondering, why is this a concern to you as a consumer? I could understand perhaps a Google/MS shareholder or employee being concerned with this, but a consumer who actually uses the devices for the functionality rather than expecting to make money off of the financial success of the brand? And please don't tell me "Well, I'm worried about the success of the Surface because the brand and the OS might both be discontinued soon," because if those were valid concerns, you wouldn't be touching Chromebooks with a 10 foot pole after market penetration that makes Windows RT's look breakneck and a desktop Android on the horizon.

Concerning hypocrisy... Very big of you to respect my product choice now but that was never what I was going for. Make an effort to keep the original point you responded to in my first post in mind. I said this:

"I wonder how many people say "Chromebooks are AWESOME! I LOVE them!" while still going bananas with glee pointing out that Windows RT doesn't run x86 apps"

You responded with this:

"I’m one of those people."

You have spent a lot of time talking about success of the brand and whatnot, but your original admission was that you were happy to deride RT for not running x86 apps but you also give Chromebook a free pass for having an *abysmal* program selection itself to the extent where a product running Surface RT can actually run more things than a Chromebook can. To simplify this, you're saying that you mock RT for not running many programs, but happily tout the virtues of another platform that runs fewer. Again, this more or less makes you a hypocrite because you hold the RT platform accountable for something that you do not hold Chromebooks accountable for. I can understand deriding RT for other reasons, but that is not the one you originally identified with. So, again, you're being a hypocrite. To be clear, I don't have a problem with you liking Chromebooks, but your originally admission that you are happy to deride the RT for limited app functionality while touting the Chromebook which is even more restricted, makes your position hypocritical.

I get the feeling that was a case of just lumping together your "I don't like Surface RT" points which, it seems to me, largely consist of "Microsoft made decisions which have not let the brand take off." From the perspective of someone who neither works for Microsoft nor stands to profit from the success of the Surface, I simply do not care about the future financial success of the brand. Rather, I care about how it works now. At the $350 price point at the time I bought mine and even at the moment, it was a functional device which I would take over almost any iOS or Android device on the market, in part because the operating system simply does more things that I care about for work purposes. I understand others have reasons for liking those other platforms and I don't really have a problem with that - they are better for other things. But for a reason to buy a Windows RT platform? At the moment, there is no $350 or under Windows tablet worth a hill of beans, and RT pretty handily trumps both Android and iOS for certain types of media consumption and for certain types of work.

Anyways, concerning the majority of both of your posts trying to explain to me how Microsoft could have made more money off the Surface brand... I really do not care. I find it a very useful machine. The future of Windows RT? They could probably do all sorts of things to improve its longevity but I suspect they won't rush to do many of them. Again, I really don't care. When this device no longer serves my purposes, I will find one that will, Surface branded, RT operating system or not, I don't care. Could you perhaps explain to me why I should care about your market analysis in view of my original statement?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2013 3:41:16 PM

Hahah alright. Microsoft demos the touch and type covers with all of their units in store and to do any sort of real work on one using office (the feature on these things that is supposed to make stand out) you'll need some sort of keyboard.

Additionally, that price of $350 is a clearance price (call it what you will but that's what it is) designed to clear out inventory for the new model.

Having said that lets stick with $350, it's not really relevant to this argument anyway.

I don't really understand what you're trying to do here. This whole thread I've been talking in terms of meta economics yet you come along and try to make it personal.

No one said you made a bad purchase, the entire point of your original comment was calling me out for bashing Win RT while at the same time loving my Chromebook which, according to you, is an inferior product. YOU called me out for talking about business practices. I might be able to understand if I would have made some blanket statement like "The Surface sucks and people who buy it are morons." I don't see that anywhere though. Do you?

If you like your RT, that's fine, it's your preference. In all of my arguments, I never said it was necessarily a bad product, just a silly business plan from Microsoft for not leveraging all of its advantages.

I would explain to you why the Chromebook is a good business practice for Google and why Win RT is not for Microsoft, even though "Chromebooks have an *abysmal* program selection," but you aren't interested in hearing that are you? If so, let me know and I'd be glad to explain.

Score
0
September 16, 2013 4:06:52 PM

JD88 said:


I don't really understand what you're trying to do here. This whole thread I've been talking in terms of meta economics yet you come along and try to make it personal.


It's quite simple really, and you are very deftly trying to avoid something which you said in the very first line of the very first response by making the issue much larger. My first comment was this:

"I wonder how many people say "Chromebooks are AWESOME! I LOVE them!" while still going bananas with glee pointing out that Windows RT doesn't run x86 apps... "

An obvious insinuation that there is something shady about this practice - in this case, a double standard. Your direct response to this was:

"I’m one of those people."

What am I trying to do? Hold you accountable for admitting to an obvious double standard. What I don't get is your constant blabbing on about market economics as if you're totally oblivious to what you originally admitted to. You responded to a post dealing directly concern on the consumer/user end with a long winded response
I asked "Why are people so down on apples this season?" and you responded with "I dislike apples, and I think ham is wonderful" and you're expecting me to talk to you about the different methods of curing a ham as if it is relevant to my original post. It's not personal, I'm just shocked at how much you keep on rambling about tangents which are at best a tertiary relation to the thing I referenced in my original post as if they were of central importance.

JD88 said:

I would explain to you why the Chromebook is a good business practice for Google and why Win RT is not for Microsoft, even though "Chromebooks have an *abysmal* program selection," but you aren't interested in hearing that are you? If so, let me know and I'd be glad to explain.


Thanks, but I think I already have a reasonable grasp of their respective business strategies without another economics lesson and on top of that, as I have said, when I am using a product, I do not care whether the company making the product is engaging in a good business practice by doing so. I have to ask, when you're using a product, is that what's running through your head? What I'm getting from your fixation on how well the respective companies are doing with their products is that when you're using your Chromebook and it doesn't run a program you really wish it did, you think to yourself "but that's OK, because Google isn't making a business end blunder with the Chromebook." What the heck does all of this successful-business-strategy talk have to do with your user experience, exactly, because you do not seem to be able to separate the two when talking about the merits of a product as usable device VS business venture for the originating company.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2013 4:30:08 PM

You're still not getting it and I'm not sure I can simplify it much more, but here goes.


It's not a double standard because Chrome OS makes sense for Google and Win RT does not for Microsoft. That's it.

I did not start "blabbing on about market economics" because that's what I was talking about from the beginning of this thread before you borderline started trolling it.

You're still acting like I said Win RT was bad. It's not a horrible product, just not what Microsoft should be pushing. I didn't say the Surface was BAD because it didn't run x86, I said it was a bad effort from Microsoft.

If you want my personal reasoning behind why "I’m one of those people," it's because: I don't like the Metro interface which is where all of the "apps " are and the fact I can't install a decent web browser. Chrome is beautifully simple while Win RT comes with bloat and a horrible interface. If I'm limited on CPU power and what apps I can install, at least give me a user-friendly interface and an efficient OS. If Microsoft wanted to make an ARM OS, they shouldn't just copy and paste desktop windows and expect it to work.

My personal opinions are really irrelevant though, but you asked for them.



Score
0
September 16, 2013 5:22:25 PM

It's painfully simple and I completely understand what you're saying, but you are rather missing my point. So, here goes..

When you say "X makes sense for Google and Y makes sense for Microsoft," what are you really saying? You are saying that "Ok, the objective of these companies is to make money off the consumer any way they can get away with so what is it that makes sense for Google/MS?" To take an example of another company doing something that "makes sense" for them would be a company like Apple selling lesser hardware at a far higher profit margin relative to cost of hardware than their competitors Why? Because they can. Does it "make sense" for them to do so? Absolutely. You can add in things like MS's previous software bundling to the extent of being anticompetitive, Google's e-mail scanning and monetizing the contents of your private - sort of, since you signed away your privacy with the EULA - documents, or any number of company's heavy DRM policy. These things might well "make sense" for the companies in question. Should any end user use this as some sort of justification of their purchase, or as an argument as to why one product is superior to another? Obviously not. Oftentimes good business is bad for the customer, and conflating business acumen with the merit/capability of a product is likely going to be counterproductive to the user.

The question I keep asking myself is - when I talk about products I like, why would "what makes sense for Google/MS/whatever" factor into my liking or end-user assessment of the product in any way, shape, or form? The thing is, when you were pretty much accused of adopting a double standard in your end-user assessment of the program-running capabilities of Chromebook VS Windows RT, you immediately resorted to talking about what "makes sense" for MS and Google to justify why it's OK for Chromebook to run practically nothing while criticizing Windows RT which actually runs more.

So MS may lose more money on Windows RT than Google will on the Chromebook. I ask you... So what? Are you an end-user or some Google stockbroker? And why on earth does Google's business acumen in any way mitigate the double standard of criticizing Windows RT's lack of x86 program capability while touting how much you love the even more crippled Chromebook? You're waving a double standard high in the air and, I'm sorry to say, the Chromebook making sense for Google from a business standpoint in no way changes that. If limited ability to run programs is a hitch for you, you should dislike the Chromebook even more than Windows RT

That being said, there are other reasons to like the Chromebook over a Windows RT device, but the ability to run a variety of programs is NOT one of them.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 16, 2013 6:02:29 PM

I've already been over this.

The inability of Win RT to run x86 does not alone make it bad bad. It's that inability coupled with the other flaws I mentioned in my last post that does.

Chrome OS is only similar to RT in that it shares that inability. The other flaws that make Win RT bad are not present.


My statement of "I'm one of those people" in response to

"I wonder how many people say "Chromebooks are AWESOME! I LOVE them!" while still going bananas with glee pointing out that Windows RT doesn't run x86 apps... "

was a reflection of that.

I personally could care less if it runs x86. I run Linux for everything but games and I don't game on my portable devices.

A lot of people do though and that matters. Here's why:

Win RT is actually a competitor to Android not Chrome OS. It's a touch screen OS, not a desktop OS.

Android has about 10x more apps than Windows RT does.

HOWEVER,

Microsoft has a HUGE advantage over Android in one way. It has access to the largest app library of all.... X86 programs that have been developed for Windows!!!

So bald head Ballmer says: "Ok guys! lets create an OS that cuts out that advantage!" Some intern says :"But why Steve?" Steve: "So our tablets can run on ARM CHIPS!!" Intern: "But they don't need to run on ARM chips, Intel chips are just as good." Steve:"But the iPad runs on ARM so I want ARM!."


Chrome OS is a free OS designed for netbooks. That's it. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. It's not bloated. It's actually fast on the ARM chips. No silly metro, no "windows update," no live tiles. It's simple. That's why it's tolerable. It's better in the mouse and keyboard environment because it's not Windows 8.

It's good for Google because it offers a way out of Win 8 for typical users.

RT is bad for Microsoft because it can't compete with Android.

Different companies, different goals, different vision. You can't compare them on the basis that they are both not x86 because they serve different purposes.

Your argument is like saying to me "you complain about the Surface not running x86 apps yet you love your toaster and it can't either!"
Score
1
September 17, 2013 3:00:46 AM

The difference between Chrome OS not running Win x86 apps and Windows RT not running Win x86 apps is that Chrome OS doesn't have Windows in its name. You may say well Win RT is different from Win x86, but to the average person Win x86 is the only Windows they know.

Kinda funny that Mac OS X and various Linux distros have better compatibility with Win x86 apps than Win RT does thanks to Wine :p 
Score
0
September 17, 2013 12:31:17 PM

Yes Fredrik, I believe that's largely the case. Windows in the title is somewhat misleading

As for JD, I get what you're doing here, and it's essentially a double back trying to lump your criticism of Windows RT not supporting x86 as a justifiable criticism because you don't like the whole package so much, whereas Chrome having garbage program support is OK because you DO like it as a whole package. The thing is, you're still a hypocrite for holding this blatant double standard, and lumping it in with other distinct criticisms doesn't change this.

Thinks of it like this. Let's say Chevy and Ford both made a public announcement today that all of their future trucks would come in one colour - hot pink. This is a bad quality for a truck. Let's then say I'm Chevy man and you're a Ford man. A forum conversation goes like this:

Me: I wonder how many people say 'Ford's new lively colour choice is SWEET - I LOVE it!' while criticizing Chevy for only offering hot pink as a colour.

You: I am one of those people.

Me: You're a hypocrite then. You are OK with hot pink in a Ford because you like Ford, but you're not OK with the same colour in Chevy.

You: No, you don't understand, it's so simple! Ford trucks are higher off the ground, have better CD players, use higher quality leather in their interiors, AND they sell better... So hot pink is OK for a Ford.

Me: What do any of those things have to do with the colour of the car? Why does Ford selling better make hot pink OK for one, but not the other, with your interests in mind rather than theirs?

You: Ford did not make a mistake by making a hot pink truck because it will still make them money, while Chevy's hot pink truck will lose them money.

Me: But that's THEIR interest. I'm talking about your consumer-end interest of actually looking at a truck - why is hot pink OK for one and not the other?

You: Because the CD player and the other features make up for it.

From here, I say, if the feature is bad for one truck, it's bad for another similar truck as well and even if other features make the package better over all. If the feature is bad, other features do not change that - they might just convince us to overlook a bad feature. But to be clear, that feature is just bad any way you look at it.

Bringing in other features/your overall product preferences dodges the central issue... We would all like it if every device ran all x86 programs just fine. That is a given. If it is bad that product X doesn't, it's bad that product Y doesn't - we just might forgive product Y because of its other features. But still, that lacking ability is a bad one. No x86 is NOT a good thing in Chrome any more than it is a good thing in Windows RT any which way you spin it. To say that no x86 support is OK in Chrome but NOT OK in the Surface is a hypocritical stance even if mitigating factors might make you want to buy a Chromebook more in spite of the bad quality of no x86 support.

Lots of people hold double standards for technology they like, sweep failings of products they like under the rug when arguing about it, etc. It's not the end of the world, and we all do it. In this case, it's blatantly obvious you've adopted a double standard and are using mitigating factors to try and justify a clear deficiency in a product you like. Just admit it, and we're done. If you hadn't seen fit to throw a bunch of irrelevant marketing BS at me like it actually mattered to any of us end users, I'd have let this drop a while ago.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
September 17, 2013 12:36:25 PM

The problem with your analogy is that you're comparing a Chevy truck to a Honda scooter, not a Ford truck. The truck needs a CD player, the scooter doesn't.

Keep trying though steve. Reword the nonsense some more and it might finally sound smart.

Buyer's remorse?
Score
0
September 17, 2013 2:12:34 PM

Tsk tsk, more selective grooming of price points is not a good note to leave off on. A Chevy truck to a Honda scooter? Really? When multiple Chromebook models cost as much as the Surface RT and some cost more? I'd like to say I've never seen someone fight so hard to hide a relatively unimportant bit of hypocrisy. So you like Chromebooks and wave a bit of a double standard on x86 functionality - admitting it might do you some good.

No remorse, thanks. I'm still finding the device serves its function in pretty much every way I need it to. Good purchase.
Score
0
September 18, 2013 1:23:34 AM

stevejnb said:
Tsk tsk, more selective grooming of price points is not a good note to leave off on. A Chevy truck to a Honda scooter? Really? When multiple Chromebook models cost as much as the Surface RT and some cost more? I'd like to say I've never seen someone fight so hard to hide a relatively unimportant bit of hypocrisy. So you like Chromebooks and wave a bit of a double standard on x86 functionality - admitting it might do you some good.

No remorse, thanks. I'm still finding the device serves its function in pretty much every way I need it to. Good purchase.


I like chromebooks, but I do find that the more expensive models are missing the point. I'd pick a cheap Chromebook over the Surface RT, but I'd also pick the Surface Pro or Macbook Air over the Chromebook Pixel.
Score
0
December 12, 2013 3:37:41 AM

JD88 said:
The problem with your analogy is that you're comparing a Chevy truck to a Honda scooter, not a Ford truck. The truck needs a CD player, the scooter doesn't.

Keep trying though steve. Reword the nonsense some more and it might finally sound smart.

Buyer's remorse?


i've been reading your debate and i think i can help clear your confusion up in regards to the surface rt.

Microsoft offers the full blown windows on their pro line with full x86 support but it comes at a cost due to the more expensive components and the x86 version of windows 8 has a much larger hdd footprint so it need more hdd space. while with the surface rt it uses the much cheaper arm apu (nvidia tegra 3/4) so it can enter the mid $500 price range to compete with the ipad and samsung galaxy range but in doing so they had to gut windows to reduce its hdd foot print to 6gb instead of 15gb to 20gb which x86 windows requires.

but windows rt as we know it now will not exist in 6 to 12 months since it will merge with windows phone 8 os because they share 80% of the apis and both use the same apu (arm).

as for the chromebook, its a waste of money. i think its google's way of trojan horsing a permanent attachment to their online services (aka cloud storage, music subscription etc) since it only has 16gb of local storage.

Score
0
December 12, 2013 5:55:05 AM

Windows RT is an attempt of Windows on tablet without what made Windows OR established tablets successful. Software support.

And Microsoft is taking Apple's walled garden model a step further, and forcing developers to use the restricted Win RT API, while they themselves use the more powerful Win32 API for their own apps. That's why you're not seeing any alternate browsers on Windows RT.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b D Laptop
December 12, 2013 7:28:46 AM

azz156 said:
JD88 said:
The problem with your analogy is that you're comparing a Chevy truck to a Honda scooter, not a Ford truck. The truck needs a CD player, the scooter doesn't.

Keep trying though steve. Reword the nonsense some more and it might finally sound smart.

Buyer's remorse?


i've been reading your debate and i think i can help clear your confusion up in regards to the surface rt.

Microsoft offers the full blown windows on their pro line with full x86 support but it comes at a cost due to the more expensive components and the x86 version of windows 8 has a much larger hdd footprint so it need more hdd space. while with the surface rt it uses the much cheaper arm apu (nvidia tegra 3/4) so it can enter the mid $500 price range to compete with the ipad and samsung galaxy range but in doing so they had to gut windows to reduce its hdd foot print to 6gb instead of 15gb to 20gb which x86 windows requires.

but windows rt as we know it now will not exist in 6 to 12 months since it will merge with windows phone 8 os because they share 80% of the apis and both use the same apu (arm).

as for the chromebook, its a waste of money. i think its google's way of trojan horsing a permanent attachment to their online services (aka cloud storage, music subscription etc) since it only has 16gb of local storage.



Have you tried a Chromebook? They are catching fire for a reason. Most tablets only have 16GB of local storage. It's about price concerns, not some sort of grand strategy. Some Chromebooks have 34GB. Not only that, but you are free to use any cloud storage you want, and most people already do. It's following trends.

Also, Windows RT actually takes up 14 GB of the HDD while Chrome OS uses about 3GB. So technically a Chromebook has just about as much available storage as the Surface. For Microsoft, it's not about disk space, it's about using their app store and services.

Score
0
!