Agreed. I think Chrome OS is best suited for sub $350 computers, but at this price, it doesn't make much sense.
Chrome OS is great for web surfing and word processing, but at $1000, it should be able to do much more.
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 New Chromebook Pixel With USB-C, $999 Price Tag
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I think Chrome OS is best suited for sub $350 computers, but at this price, it doesn't make much sense.
Chrome OS is great for web surfing and word processing, but at $1000, it should be able to do much more.
So what you're saying is that the new Macbook should have more ports, and the Pixel should have more software to justify all that hardware.
...you know, I don't disagree.
Imagine a laptop where Linux comes pre-installed and it Just Works. Drivers for power management, sleep/resume, trackpad, touch screen.
And imagine you can press a key to get from ChromeOS to whatever Linux desktop you want -- Ubuntu, whatever. Running in parallel to ChromeOS -- flip back and forth in a second. And it's not a memory-hog VM. It's running in a "chroot" on the same Linux kernel.
That's the ChromeBook Pixel.
It's not for everyone. But it is a very much not-crazy option for some people.
The $1299 LS model has 16 GB RAM, Core i7, and 64 GB flash storage. So on 2 of 3 raw specs, it's a good value compared to say the new MacBook. Only 64 GB storage? Not ideal. But 2X the previous Pixel. And it goes further with Linux than you might imagine (depending what you do with it).
And imagine you can press a key to get from ChromeOS to whatever Linux desktop you want -- Ubuntu, whatever. Running in parallel to ChromeOS -- flip back and forth in a second. And it's not a memory-hog VM. It's running in a "chroot" on the same Linux kernel.
That's the ChromeBook Pixel.
It's not for everyone. But it is a very much not-crazy option for some people.
The $1299 LS model has 16 GB RAM, Core i7, and 64 GB flash storage. So on 2 of 3 raw specs, it's a good value compared to say the new MacBook. Only 64 GB storage? Not ideal. But 2X the previous Pixel. And it goes further with Linux than you might imagine (depending what you do with it).
Or you know you could just, tether to your phone for an internet connection.
Or you could plug in whatever peripheral without the dongle.....
But as far as "users stuck in their ways" goes, you're proving my point very well so thanks.
The MacBook Air hasn't suddenly ceased to exist; it's still a relatively lightweight option with multiple ports to suit the needs of a particular use-case. Why can't Apple cater to a different market, the folks who might otherwise be attracted to something like a Chromebook? It might not be for suitable for you, but to then imply that someone who likes what is being offered is just drinking Apple's kool-aid is pretty narrow minded, if you ask me.
Well that depends upon your needs, you need to remember there was a time when 32 GB was unheard ofin a personal computer. I hate to even mention how much I paid for my external drive for my old Mac Plus and the little bit of storage it provided.
32 GB is enough storage to setup a decent development platform for example. Directions for a LINUX install sit right here: http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/chromebook_pixel_linux.txt. Obviously I don't know if they apply to this revision but Intel does an excellent job of providing drivers for the kernel so LINUX at least runs decently on the Broadwell chip.
Beyond that you have those USB ports where some storage sticks basically disappear into.
Last edited:
Does chroot come standard with the Pixel? If not, that doesn't work as a feature for your average person, cuz setting that up can be kind of a pain.
...though I am tempted to get it as a Linux notebook, I'll admit. That 64GB SSD is about the only thing I have a problem with, and you can replace that fairly easily.
Interesting
Well, the Pixel doesn't directly compare to any of Apple's laptops...
It uses USB-C like the new MacBook, but is nowhere even close in size and weight.
It has some features (ports, weight) and a price tag similar to the MacBook Air, but not a tapered design, and lacking in SSD storage space, although with a higher resolution screen.
It looks more like the MacBook Pro in style, dimensions, and ports (except USB-C), although a little lighter, but not nearly as capable as the MacBook Pro.
Too bad it runs ChromeOS. Seems to me the better deal is the MacBook Pro 13" entry level model, unless you're just dying to use the new USB-C connector.
It was quite apparent from the video that Google is really good at ripping off Apple's designs and product presentation.
... About that USB-C business - 2 ports would have been a better choice (for the MacBook). As a full industry standard, the new connector will eventually proliferate everywhere, including all Apple hardware, but it will take time. Methinks I'll wait for MacBook model 2, where Apple hopefully overcomes their foolish stubborness and puts 2 USB-C ports on the thing.
Well, the Pixel doesn't directly compare to any of Apple's laptops...
It uses USB-C like the new MacBook, but is nowhere even close in size and weight.
It has some features (ports, weight) and a price tag similar to the MacBook Air, but not a tapered design, and lacking in SSD storage space, although with a higher resolution screen.
It looks more like the MacBook Pro in style, dimensions, and ports (except USB-C), although a little lighter, but not nearly as capable as the MacBook Pro.
Too bad it runs ChromeOS. Seems to me the better deal is the MacBook Pro 13" entry level model, unless you're just dying to use the new USB-C connector.
It was quite apparent from the video that Google is really good at ripping off Apple's designs and product presentation.
... About that USB-C business - 2 ports would have been a better choice (for the MacBook). As a full industry standard, the new connector will eventually proliferate everywhere, including all Apple hardware, but it will take time. Methinks I'll wait for MacBook model 2, where Apple hopefully overcomes their foolish stubborness and puts 2 USB-C ports on the thing.
Last edited:
No, that's not what Google is trying to promote here.
It's not average user, but it's follow a few steps and wait about 20 minutes for stuff to download:
http://www.howtogeek.com/162120/how-to-install-ubuntu-linux-on-your-chromebook-with-crouton/
And you can't mess anything up. You can always hard reset the thing.
Having done it a few times, it's easier and faster than say installing VirtualBox or Parallels and Windows, for sure.
This being USB and not TB, it is more likely that we have a $100 third-party accessory in 9 months.
Somebody has to take the first step, and it would be the first time that Apple is the one (not that they are with all or even most things). So, sure, USB-C and TB will be a big muddle with Apple products for a while.
Bear in mind, the Pixel is not meant to be a consumer laptop but is instead for enthusiasts and to serve as a development model for OEMs. I believe I remember reading recently that Google announced a new Pixel was coming but reiterated the aforementioned caveats because they weren't going to produce enough to sate a mass-market desire for the high end Chromebooks.
Adapters are easy to forget or to lose.
Why should I have to choose? The Macbook Air shows that it's possible to have a very portable notebook with better connectivity. Unfortunately its screen is completely outdated. Otherwise it would be a much better choice than the new Macbook.
Just a single additional USB port would go a long way.
Wrong, this thing is far more powerful than the new MacBook, and neither of them are over priced
Then you pay $300 more for a slower computer, with less ports.
I wonder if people will be able to hack windows to run natively on this.
If I recall correctly with the last generation pixel, many people tried to install windows, however, I was never saw anyone be able to run it natively successfully.
Incorrect
Thank you, some people will never understand.
Not interested in the Google chrome book or the new macbook. Apple did this in 2008 and it wasn't received well. Why try again?
Apple did what in 2008 that wasn't revived well?
Should be possible, I think I recall seeing someone was able to install linux natively on the last generation pixel
Define better please.
*Sigh* some people will never understand
Wrong, it is not overpriced. Find me one windows or apple OS machine, with the same or similar enough specs at a lower price.
It's not overpriced. Find me one competing laptop with the same specs at a lower price.
No, this thing is not a direct contender with the new MacBook, this is more comparable to the macbook air.
I assume it means the camera records video at 1280x720 pixels
16GB does seem like quite a lot to me, for ChromeOS.
See my previous post; this is not intended for the average consumer, as stated by Google themselves:
Source: https://gigaom.com/2015/02/24/chromebook-pixel-2-specifications-price-expectations/
Why? What's the specific use case that would make a second port SO much better?
Also, if buy an adapter that's that important, shouldn't I be able to keep track of it?
Apple and Google didn't get to where they are now by compromising first and innovating later.
I'm all for the new Macbook. The discussion was about why the average user might have good reason to wish there was a second USB-C port, along with all the other goodness that comes with the new Macbook (MBA is not retina).
There's nothing "simple" about the fact the adapters they've shown thus far have no pass-through on them. So if you need a Firewire adapter but want to plug in your mouse and keyboard when you dock...well...I hope you have Bluetooth mice and keyboards. If you want to plug in AC power AND have a Firewire port and/or anything at all? I don't see an adapter for that yet. It seems to me you really NEED at least two ports just to cover plugging the damn thing in when you're at a hotel or docked. You can't swap out the battery if you run out of power so I guess you just have to sit there and WAIT for it to recharge or choose not to use anything that needs to plug in at all. Yeah, any way I try to run it through my thick skull, I come to the conclusion that TWO ports would/should have been a bare minimum OR one port PLUS a mag-safe connector (where you COULD charge it with the USB port if needed, but would have an alternate option). Looking at the chassis, I see enough space for 2-3 ports per side and then there's the back/front as well that they could have had some useful ports for SOMETHING so you didn't have to depend on ONE lousy port for everything under the sun.
Now, keep those adapters handy and don't lose them or you lose everything. You'll probably need about 8 different varieties until someone comes up with "The Ultimate Hub" for this thing, but to carry a half dozen or more ports, it will be bulky. Oddly, though they already had a bulky surface they could have fit 6 ports on and it's called the FREAKING COMPUTER ITSELF!
IMO, there's no point to any of these "thin freak" models. Given the price isn't even much lower, I honestly don't see the point of them. I'm more afraid they will continue to ruin the Pro models with further reductions (they already ditched the removable battery, dedicated FW400 first and then later ALL FW ports (more adapters even on the Pro model, yay!), made your Thunderbolt and VIDEO OUT ports ubiquitous (causing more potential adapter and daisy-chaining headaches) and all these things are supposed to make life SIMPLER? HOW, I ask? To me, it's simpler to use the sides of the computer to fit as many freaking ports as possible JUST IN CASE you need them. Johnny Ive can make things thinner. Can he not make them thinner without sacrificing utility? It doesn't appear so. Time to hire someone with more talent, IMO.
I'm saying I want more ports than the MBP has even (i.e. my 2008 model has LOADS of ports and a removable battery AND a DVD writer drive and yet it's still pretty darn thin and weighed only around 5 pounds even so. Honestly, I don't really give a crap about thin. It's more like Apple is trying to FORCE thin on me these days. Why does a Mac Mini need to be thin? It's a desktop! It could be a little bigger and have better video and maybe that quad-core i7 option they got rid of (that does fit in my 2012 version even so).
Furthermore, given the high prices of these "Macbooks", I'd expect not only enough functionality to get things done, but something faster than a low-end PC or glorified Netbook processor. Given the complaints already about the trackpad (one of Apple's high points in the past), I'd say it seems like a glorified Netbook at 3x the price. One might as well get a Macbook Pro, IMO.
But then I never really understood the fascination with the early Macbook Air either. Underpowered, overpriced for a slightly thinner/lighter model? Blech. But some people loved them anyway. This actually seems like a mediocre attempt to compete with the Microsoft Surface line, except without having any options for touch-screen functionality. I know touch-screens suck for some activities, but it'd be so easy to include the option at this point, it kind of makes Apple look almost RETRO in some respects.
I would reply that is a very strange thing to say given those items have nothing to do with computers. I mean if you're going to condescend and generally act in such manners, at least give a clever comparison instead of bringing out the sandwich concept from The Jetsons circa 1962.
Perhaps Mr. Ive could only be bothered to fit one? I see plenty of space on the sides. It's just a matter of leaving enough room for the data lines. If that means the motherboard has to leave an extra 1/16 inch of space for them, so be it.
So if something doesn't exist on the market or not in that configuration that means they can charge anything they want? That seems to be what you're implying. Value is in the eye of the consumer and to me, thinner isn't worth more money. The Macbook Pro is MORE than thin enough. I already thought the existing Air was moot. Again, this seems more like some kind of competition with the Microsoft Surface line, but without the flexible tablet capabilities. I mean if this thing could flip over and be an iPad as well, that would be something useful and justify the price. As it is, it just seems like a slightly smaller/thinner Macbook Pro without all those pesky useful PORTS and a much slower CPU.
Another question: can you install a Linux distro directly without having it ride alongside ChromeOS on a Pixel?
Linux has far more support these days than it's ever had, and ChromeOS doesn't offer so much more over a standard distro that you'd feel like you'd want to keep it around for those couple of extra features you couldn't otherwise get.
In fact, it's kind of the opposite these days. The only thing Chrome offers is the ability to run Android apps right out of the box, but that's not an exclusive feature. You're only a few tweaks away from getting that functionality elsewhere.
So if you wanted to buy a Pixel just for the hardware, you could do that, right?
For example something that happens almost every day in the business world: Somebody walks up to you and gives you a USB flash drive with some files. And please, don't say "Airdrop" now, since it is a proprietary Apple protocol that is not supported by the majority of notebooks in the real world. Or perhaps you just want to charge your phone and don't have a powerbrick.
I still haven't heard a single good reason why Apple shouldn't build an additional USB port into the thing.