I don't hate anyone, or any of these three. It's just business.
I find it rather amusing that so many people choose to be angry, hateful, and so closed minded.
Why not enjoy new developments?
It's not life or death, yet some sure act that way ...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Announces 'Chromebook' Laptops, No Word on Chrome-Based Tablets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I find it rather amusing that so many people choose to be angry, hateful, and so closed minded.
Why not enjoy new developments?
It's not life or death, yet some sure act that way ...
I'd consider one of these if they were a little cheaper. The Samsung is nicer looking and has a bigger screen, but the Acer has a HDMI port and a higher resolution screen. It seems they have bumped the specs since the CR-48 Laptop they beta'd. Still overall, I think these are probably slower than the iPad 2, with regards to CPU and GPU.
Wow, Google has pulled a Microsoft. Convinced hardware manufactures to crank out low-profit hardware for them so they can rake in all the cash on the software side.
Brilliant move, Samsung/Acer.
While Google is truly starting to terrify me, I have to say that anyone Steve Ballmer hates is a friend of mine.
Brilliant move, Samsung/Acer.
While Google is truly starting to terrify me, I have to say that anyone Steve Ballmer hates is a friend of mine.
Last edited:
For one, it provides only very limited facilities for text management (you can only get the width of a string, not the height or baseline of a font). It is tough to create any real-world application without that. FWIW, I asked the HTML 5 working group to add such a feature, but was denied.
Yeah, I understand how <canvas> works.
Actually, I never said "sucks". You said that.
I think I do. I'm just not as verbose as you.
I know how "classes" work in JavaScript. I have written a number of fairly large JS libraries. And, from my experience, such libraries are generally easier to write in more OO-oriented languages such as Java or C#.
It helps you catch development errors before your app is deployed to the field.
Not ignoring it - just not relevant to my point. JIT compilation is a performance optimization. It is not the same thing as development-time compilation.
True, but I prefer not to use those languages.
That's subjective. And as I mentioned earlier, those are exactly some of the things that, as a programmer, I am looking for in a language, and JavaScript does not provide it.
Last edited:
So write a text management libraries that does calculate those things based on the font used. Canvas is primitive, the libraries will come.
Which is what produces flame wars instead of sensible arguments.
It helps catch syntax errors, not development errors. Errors in logic get pass compilers easily. Ever done an if(number1 = number2) when you meant if(number1 == number2) ? Compiler accepts both. First one is a development error (you want to compare, not assign).
That's why as a developer, you usually run the code yourself first and do your initial testing before handing it off to Q&A which runs a full suite of test cases and regressions before handing it out for deployment in production.
Your point I think was saying that as a native environment, Javascript/HTML/DOM/CSS is not as good as other frameworks/languages and thus Google was spreading FUD.
The fact is, many of those other framework languages work the same way (interpreted languages with no intermediate bytecode step, compiled using a JIT compiler) and thus my point is that your initial point is wrong. Google is not spreading FUD, HTML5's many different specifications/APIs does make it a very viable native application environment.
Moving goal posts much ? I guess what you meant to say originally was that you personally don't like Javascript/HTML/DOM/CSS, not that Google was spreading FUD then. Maybe you should think about that next time before you go straight to accusations.
Exactly, FUD isn't subjective, FUD is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I now feel it's you that is spreading the FUD, Google is just offering their subjective opinion on what the W3C is trying to accomplish because they believe it is a viable platform to make rich applications like we use today on desktops.
Completely agree with the above. I work for a company who use Wyse thin terminals, configured to use Citrix, as well as access fobs to enable remote logins. The upsides, from the company's perspective, are security, energy efficiency, standardisation and a low equipment cost. All the thin terminals need is an internet connection and a web browser. This sounds like exactly the type of market that the Chromebook could work with well. For these purposes, businesses don't need expensive, powerful laptops.
I think a point worth developing surrounds security. Yes, your data is stored on a cloud (if you choose to use Google's cloud-based apps), however as a company you don't have any risk that someone leaves a laptop on a train with unsecured data that can be accessed by an unauthorised user. That's a massive security upside. I could, in fact, see a variant of this that would be perfect for the government. No more worries about people leaving classified materials on public transport.
Incidently, the SSD boot speed comparison some people are making is irrelevent. The cost of a reasonable (256GB, for example) SSD isn't that short of the cost of this laptop. They solve the same purpose, but are not for the same market.
This is what must keep Ballmer & Boys up at night. My organization has 100,000+ employees and we keep buying Microsoft Office, despite the fact that 99% of our employees don't use 99% of the "features" of that application suite. It's a baffling practice. And one that's doomed to extinction eventually.
To some, this represents a war between Apple & Google, yet whether you believe it or not, there's plenty of business for everyone.
To those arguing this is a scheme, you're right. Thus far Apple's proven they dream up the best schemes of all.
Why is this receiving so much attention?
Because instead of enjoying their great successes, basking in the fact that Apple is the worlds most recognized brand, making billions of dollars, and selling massive numbers of product, Apple just can't enjoy.
They'd rather start legal fights, attack when they already have the upper hand, and be the bully.
Too bad they are obsessed with negativity. Its such a disease, their iFans are infected as well.
To those arguing this is a scheme, you're right. Thus far Apple's proven they dream up the best schemes of all.
Why is this receiving so much attention?
Because instead of enjoying their great successes, basking in the fact that Apple is the worlds most recognized brand, making billions of dollars, and selling massive numbers of product, Apple just can't enjoy.
They'd rather start legal fights, attack when they already have the upper hand, and be the bully.
Too bad they are obsessed with negativity. Its such a disease, their iFans are infected as well.
If other companies would start doing their own work, Apple wouldn't have to keep suing them.
Oh, and most the negativity around here isn't coming from the "iFans," it's coming from the iHaters.
While Google is truly starting to terrify me, I have to say that anyone Steve Ballmer hates is a friend of mine.
His hate stems only from fear of losing money, which is a universal fear of all corporate fat cats. Nothing special there.
I'd love to. As I mentioned, I write JavaScript libraries. But how do you propose I do that when the browser does not provide any hooks to get to this information, nor do the developers of the HTML 5 spec plan to add any such hooks in the foreseeable future?
True, but surely that is better than catching no errors?
Yes, I know what FUD is.
I simply disagree with Google's assertion that "with HTML5 and other open standards, web applications will soon be able to do anything traditional applications can do, and more". I see this as FUD because it implies that the native toolkits used by Chrome OS's competitors are not necessary.
All I'm saying is that HTML 5 isn't as robust as a native development platform. I don't see how that could possibly be misinterpreted as FUD.
Last edited:
you do know that MS has been one of the biggest players at pushing the centralizes system right were the worker computers are really nothing more than a dummy terminal in most of their functions. Vast majority of the stuff is done from the central server. These chromebooks are not a threat to that at all. If anything it makes it even bigger. Enterprise is were the big bucks are at and this is not going to even hurt MS set up.
In terms of licencing Office to MS it is about the number of active ones in use at one time. That does not matter if you have multiple people using them on a server or on the computer. Each user counts as 1 licences.
As for Chromebooks right now I see them as a first gen thing so their cost is way to high but if they got down to the 200 buck range they would have my attentions.
The Air is also alot more expensive than these budget laptops dumbass. I can buy an 11.6" Acer dual AMD netbook for $400 with W7 64bit. Why would anybody buy this gimped Chrome garbage for the same price?
This is just a dumb terminal, who will be willing to carry such a useless piece of crap?
Yeah, thinclient computing is so dead. That's why we keep hearing about it everyday in the form of "cloud computing". Let's face it, "The Cloud" is simply a new way of talking about thin computing.
The fact is, thin computing never went away and it's becoming a big thing as far as IT goes. It saves costs and makes deployment and support much simpler. Chrome OS could be big in this space, with the proper 3rd party vendor support (IE, Citrix, which is coming).
$400 laptops are no good. You can quote a bunch of specifications but it is meaningless beside the numerous cases of buyers remorse I personally encounter. When people are upset about their crappy $400 computer, they are not interested in how the CPU, display and other components are supposedly the same but less money.
Yeah, client-server computer never went away, but let's face it: People eventually prefered personal computers over VT100s connected to a VAX or a 3270 connected to an AS/400, that's why the PC, the Apple II, the C64 had a huge success. Computing independence, that it is. I like to decide when I need something from the internet, and being able to use my MBP even while flying (try that with "the cloud", paradoxically enough).
I can see my school purchasing a couple hundred of these and having them at the library to borrow. Student will come in swipe their student ID then they will receive the computer for a given set of hours. The school will rack in money off of expensive overage fees. Students can use these to take notes and write papers in places less crowded then our computer labs. Its finals and it is impossible to find a computer at the school library or the local ones. So this will help. Especially if they allow overnight. Schools will jump over this. To bad many of them will have to wait for dell or HP because of their exclusive deals with them.
Quite thinking of this as a consumer computer and think of it as something you will see in libraries and kinkos. This will be in places where companies let people use computers. This will be great. Libraries will carry them kinkos, will carry them.
Quite thinking of this as a consumer computer and think of it as something you will see in libraries and kinkos. This will be in places where companies let people use computers. This will be great. Libraries will carry them kinkos, will carry them.
Last edited:
Google announced that these things will supports Google Calendar, Google Docs and Gmail all offline.
But again, these are made for an always connected users, with some support offered for the downtime that hits everyone sometimes.
I'm not sure MS convinced anyone of that idea, in fact the whole netbook push was a result of Asus creating a small laptop running Linux.
Google likely isn't making a large(if any) profit on Chrome OS, just more a way to push its services.
It might be software which meets a users needs better. My grandmother has an HP running Vista, but really she only users FireFox on the laptop. She'd be better off with ChromeOS as it give her less room for things to do wrong.
The hardware that ChromeOS ships with is less important then the software. I assume ChromeOS can run better then Chrome on Windows 7 on the same hardware, since there is less software taxing the hardware.
But I agree, hopefully as ChromeOS gains market share, we'll see some cheaper models.
Also I don't see a need to insult anyone.
I have to admit you make a rather compelling case for these machines' usefulness even if I still think this is a product not for me. I can see corporations forcing this crap on their drone employees, but that doesn't mean the employees will want them. Hell, I think my Mom has a higher level of computer knowledge to not want this product, although I'll admit she's close. Among today's college kids, I think if the college you're considering is forcing students to use this crap, it's likely to be a community college, not a decent school.
All in all, you seem to be giving very good reasons why schools and corporations might force these on people more so than why people would actually want them, well unless they are pretty much dumb as a rock computer-wise.
I can envision college graduation now. Instead of throwing their caps in the air, the students will throw these Chromebooks in the air and there will be a dumpster full of them on the following day. Hardly a green initiative that's for sure.
And finally, this year's "Cause Celeb", "The Cloud." Honestly, the only thing I'd want stored on the cloud is media & music and possibly unimportant personal emails. And I can't even imagine not have my media & emails backed up on a more powerful machine.
Maybe I'm a cynic and/or a doomsayer or an old fashioned "client" type person, but I can honestly see a situation where the cloud is hacked and/or destroyed in a terrorist attack and everyone at U of XYZ loses their final term paper. In an unstable world of terrorism, I just don't see a future in centralized anything. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I just see too many risks for the future with everyone beholden to "The Cloud." Almost reminds me of Apple's 1984 TV commercial.