Movies can be made on Chrombooks using cloud editors. Files and photos can be stored in the cloud. They can be edited there too. Office productivity can be done in the cloud. This puts the needed horsepower in the cloud therefore the device in hand doesn't need to be powerful. I've been wanting to buy one for almost a month. The model I want is always out of stock because it is so popular. It has a Haswell chip and 4 GB RAM.
Read the reviews of Chromebooks. The only people who don't like them these days are misinformed people who expected to be able to run Microsux programs. Early adopters of Chrome OS are finding that their older Chromebooks now run faster because the software has been updated. Apps are being added all of the time. Now the touch screen models are coming out and they are being well received.
These are not the netbooks of the past. These are what netbooks should have been in the past. Long live Chrome OS.
Beside the sharing aspect of it, which is nothing more than files synchronization and mirroring easily replaceable with some shell script (Dropbox is a bunch of PHP script himself), I said this is a good free service like Google search, but hardly an asset with big monetization, I wonder how much money Microsoft is making with there SkyDrive services.
Why do you care how much money MSFT is making? If you do, though, my guess is: A LOT, since SkyDrive is an integral part of Office 365, and Dropbox has a market value in several billion dollar range right now. Whether they do this with PHP scripts, rsync, or an army of OrangUtans in Bali is irrelevant (it is pretty clear, if you look at what it does, that it is none of the above,with possible exception of the OrangUtan theory, since it is doing quite sophisticated things.)
Why do you care how much money MSFT is making? If you do, though, my guess is: A LOT, since SkyDrive is an integral part of Office 365, and Dropbox has a market value in several billion dollar range right now. Whether they do this with PHP scripts, rsync, or an army of OrangUtans in Bali is irrelevant (it is pretty clear, if you look at what it does, that it is none of the above,with possible exception of the OrangUtan theory, since it is doing quite sophisticated things.)
You know Twitter is another several billion dollar business without any sane monetization, my point is when you are forced to offer a service for free like Dropbox, Skydrive and Google Drive offers it normally means they don't have a lots of interest from consumers. Same apply for online office suite, Office 365, Google Docs or iWorks are all gimmick, apps made in a browser will never equal native apps.
Movies can be made on Chrombooks using cloud editors. Files and photos can be stored in the cloud. They can be edited there too. Office productivity can be done in the cloud. This puts the needed horsepower in the cloud therefore the device in hand doesn't need to be powerful. I've been wanting to buy one for almost a month. The model I want is always out of stock because it is so popular. It has a Haswell chip and 4 GB RAM.
Read the reviews of Chromebooks. The only people who don't like them these days are misinformed people who expected to be able to run Microsux programs. Early adopters of Chrome OS are finding that their older Chromebooks now run faster because the software has been updated. Apps are being added all of the time. Now the touch screen models are coming out and they are being well received.
These are not the netbooks of the past. These are what netbooks should have been in the past. Long live Chrome OS.
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
The Chromebook is much cheaper, the OS and the apps are always up to date, most of the processing is done in the cloud so you can carry around a much cheaper and lighter device. Some people don't find this useful, some do.
You know Twitter is another several billion dollar business without any sane monetization, my point is when you are forced to offer a service for free like Dropbox, Skydrive and Google Drive offers it normally means they don't have a lots of interest from consumers. Same apply for online office suite, Office 365, Google Docs or iWorks are all gimmick, apps made in a browser will never equal native apps.
I am sorry, you are just too clueless to have a discussion with.
The Chromebook is much cheaper, the OS and the apps are always up to date, most of the processing is done in the cloud so you can carry around a much cheaper and lighter device. Some people don't find this useful, some do.
Sorry I was referring to the 1500$ pixel Chromebook which is way too limited for this price point. For me a web browser and web apps is not enough, and without a real local storage, the Chromebook unfit for my needs. I still wonder why Google maintain 2 OS, why if ChromeOS is so great they won't use it on phone? Same for Android, why they split their 2 OS apart? Why no ChromeOS tablet then?
Impossible to play movies on a Chromebook? Someone shoulda told me before I did so. :no:
I don't think some of the commenters in this thread actually know much about Chromebooks and what they can and cannot do. Here's a link to a short Q&A for those curious about them. https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/3265094?hl=en
Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. My friend wanted to send a local file to an always on networked drive so that her TV could access the movies. But there is no way to use a NAS on a Chromebook. So no movies.
And what if wifi is down or you are out on a field trip? Not everyone has wifi at home either. what about software? It's basically a useless brick without wifi
I hate how chrome books run nothing valuable, they are basically Internet only laptops(running a sucky internet browser to).
Yes you control exactly what is installed on the device... Nothing.
Yep, it's all cloud, in other words any device sold that runs a Internet browser works better.
This is obviosly off, I have only seen 10 chrome books (at a school) out of the 1000s I've seen (about 70% Mac). There are many reasons why they are not used, those 10 I saw, they are being replaced be other net books, (and sometimes macs and iPads) do to they can't run a plug in, software of any descent.
I still wonder why Google maintain 2 OS, why if ChromeOS is so great they won't use it on phone? Same for Android, why they split their 2 OS apart? Why no ChromeOS tablet then?
The Chrome OS is a solution looking for a problem
Is the "iOS" just a misspelling of "OS X" then? Surely Apple wouldn't also make this mistake for the last 6 years.
Touchscreen Chromebooks are essentially a ChromeOS tablet with a keyboard and trackpad, so we're not far away from that, but ChromeOS is targeting less expensive hardware than a Gorilla Glass multitouch screen interface. Running Android on a laptop would be about as natural as the Windows Metro interface on a laptop. Oh. Wait. We've already seen how that sucks.
In some ways, Android, Windows, and Mac can all run ChromeOS in the sense that they can run Chrome, which is 99.9% of ChromeOS.
Just guessing, but I think many people who spent $400 or more on an iPad or $1000+ on an Air would get just as much use from a $200 +/- Chromebook. I doubt most folks run Photoshop or Illustrator or even need to specifically use Microsoft Office on a tablet or laptop. If you do then a Chromebook isn't for you.
While Apple targets the higher-income consumer Google is trying to offer a solution that everyone can consider. So what Chromebooks may be able to do that those high-priced tablets and laptops cannot is make the internet and all it can offer available to a whole segment that otherwise might not be able to without significant sacrifice. How is that something bad?
For the price of a Chromebook, I think an Android tablet is of better value.
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Firstly, interpreted apps will never be native, pure and simple. Secondly, the APIs will never be remotely as rich.
Thirdly, WebKit will never touch AppKit/Foundation Kit. Get over this fantasy. Finally, Mainframes were never `powerful.' They were centralized and overpriced.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
I don't think this is the future. Yes historically there have been oscillations between having everything local vs having everything on the server and just having a dumb terminal. But we seem to be settling on a half-way point of having apps locally and documents on the server.
Things like cloud compute resources may be added to Grand Central Dispatch type APIs as a special kind of queue, not sure.
For the price of a Chromebook, I think an Android tablet is of better value.
Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.
So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?
Is the "iOS" just a misspelling of "OS X" then? Surely Apple wouldn't also make this mistake for the last 6 years.
Touchscreen Chromebooks are essentially a ChromeOS tablet with a keyboard and trackpad, so we're not far away from that, but ChromeOS is targeting less expensive hardware than a Gorilla Glass multitouch screen interface. Running Android on a laptop would be about as natural as the Windows Metro interface on a laptop. Oh. Wait. We've already seen how that sucks.
In some ways, Android, Windows, and Mac can all run ChromeOS in the sense that they can run Chrome, which is 99.9% of ChromeOS.
I agree, Apple made an artificial gap between iOS and OSX to make sure iDevice and Mac who doesn't share the same paradigm (Touch input vs keyboard + mouse) got the right treatment from its developer.
But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.
Comments
Movies can be made on Chrombooks using cloud editors. Files and photos can be stored in the cloud. They can be edited there too. Office productivity can be done in the cloud. This puts the needed horsepower in the cloud therefore the device in hand doesn't need to be powerful. I've been wanting to buy one for almost a month. The model I want is always out of stock because it is so popular. It has a Haswell chip and 4 GB RAM.
Read the reviews of Chromebooks. The only people who don't like them these days are misinformed people who expected to be able to run Microsux programs. Early adopters of Chrome OS are finding that their older Chromebooks now run faster because the software has been updated. Apps are being added all of the time. Now the touch screen models are coming out and they are being well received.
These are not the netbooks of the past. These are what netbooks should have been in the past. Long live Chrome OS.
Beside the sharing aspect of it, which is nothing more than files synchronization and mirroring easily replaceable with some shell script (Dropbox is a bunch of PHP script himself), I said this is a good free service like Google search, but hardly an asset with big monetization, I wonder how much money Microsoft is making with there SkyDrive services.
Why do you care how much money MSFT is making? If you do, though, my guess is: A LOT, since SkyDrive is an integral part of Office 365, and Dropbox has a market value in several billion dollar range right now. Whether they do this with PHP scripts, rsync, or an army of OrangUtans in Bali is irrelevant (it is pretty clear, if you look at what it does, that it is none of the above,with possible exception of the OrangUtan theory, since it is doing quite sophisticated things.)
Why do you care how much money MSFT is making? If you do, though, my guess is: A LOT, since SkyDrive is an integral part of Office 365, and Dropbox has a market value in several billion dollar range right now. Whether they do this with PHP scripts, rsync, or an army of OrangUtans in Bali is irrelevant (it is pretty clear, if you look at what it does, that it is none of the above,with possible exception of the OrangUtan theory, since it is doing quite sophisticated things.)
Movies can be made on Chrombooks using cloud editors. Files and photos can be stored in the cloud. They can be edited there too. Office productivity can be done in the cloud. This puts the needed horsepower in the cloud therefore the device in hand doesn't need to be powerful. I've been wanting to buy one for almost a month. The model I want is always out of stock because it is so popular. It has a Haswell chip and 4 GB RAM.
Read the reviews of Chromebooks. The only people who don't like them these days are misinformed people who expected to be able to run Microsux programs. Early adopters of Chrome OS are finding that their older Chromebooks now run faster because the software has been updated. Apps are being added all of the time. Now the touch screen models are coming out and they are being well received.
These are not the netbooks of the past. These are what netbooks should have been in the past. Long live Chrome OS.
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
The Chromebook is much cheaper, the OS and the apps are always up to date, most of the processing is done in the cloud so you can carry around a much cheaper and lighter device. Some people don't find this useful, some do.
I am sorry, you are just too clueless to have a discussion with.
The Chromebook is much cheaper, the OS and the apps are always up to date, most of the processing is done in the cloud so you can carry around a much cheaper and lighter device. Some people don't find this useful, some do.
Sorry I was referring to the 1500$ pixel Chromebook which is way too limited for this price point. For me a web browser and web apps is not enough, and without a real local storage, the Chromebook unfit for my needs. I still wonder why Google maintain 2 OS, why if ChromeOS is so great they won't use it on phone? Same for Android, why they split their 2 OS apart? Why no ChromeOS tablet then?
The Chrome OS is a solution looking for a problem
I am sorry, you are just too clueless to have a discussion with.
Sorry, but you are clueless one here since you don't have any sane response. I'll gladly debate with you if you comes with good argues…
Maybe my comment wasn't clear enough. My friend wanted to send a local file to an always on networked drive so that her TV could access the movies. But there is no way to use a NAS on a Chromebook. So no movies.
Still horribly yet it's better than cheap.
Yep, it's all cloud, in other words any device sold that runs a Internet browser works better.
This is obviosly off, I have only seen 10 chrome books (at a school) out of the 1000s I've seen (about 70% Mac). There are many reasons why they are not used, those 10 I saw, they are being replaced be other net books, (and sometimes macs and iPads) do to they can't run a plug in, software of any descent.
I still wonder why Google maintain 2 OS, why if ChromeOS is so great they won't use it on phone? Same for Android, why they split their 2 OS apart? Why no ChromeOS tablet then?
The Chrome OS is a solution looking for a problem
Is the "iOS" just a misspelling of "OS X" then? Surely Apple wouldn't also make this mistake for the last 6 years.
Touchscreen Chromebooks are essentially a ChromeOS tablet with a keyboard and trackpad, so we're not far away from that, but ChromeOS is targeting less expensive hardware than a Gorilla Glass multitouch screen interface. Running Android on a laptop would be about as natural as the Windows Metro interface on a laptop. Oh. Wait. We've already seen how that sucks.
In some ways, Android, Windows, and Mac can all run ChromeOS in the sense that they can run Chrome, which is 99.9% of ChromeOS.
The data is from the "US Commercial Channel"
That is sales to businesses, government, education and other organizations.
It is NOT general consumer retail sales.
For the price of a Chromebook, I think an Android tablet is of better value.
I hate when being able to doing stuff is enough, my interrogation is does it do better? The so called cloud editors is better than other alternatives that already exist on Windows and Mac OS? I don't think so. Do Chrome OS is a better OS than OSX, Windows or Linux? I don't think so either. So what is the value of a more expensive laptop with fewer software option?
Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Guess what? Chrome OS apps are improving all of the time. Eventually they'll do things as good as native programs. Some already do. Chrome OS is based on Linux. There are numerous free programs for the Linux kernel. There will be just as many or more for Chrome OS in time.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
Firstly, interpreted apps will never be native, pure and simple. Secondly, the APIs will never be remotely as rich.
Thirdly, WebKit will never touch AppKit/Foundation Kit. Get over this fantasy. Finally, Mainframes were never `powerful.' They were centralized and overpriced.
Chrome OS is bringing us back to the time when we used a powerful mainframe with numerous terminals. Only this time we have the terminals in our homes or anywhere there is a good internet connection. The terminals don't need to be powerful. They just need to connect to the cloud servers. This means that as programs evolve and need more horsepower we won't really need to upgrade our Chromebooks. We'll let the cloud servers get replaced with faster processors. Our Chromebooks won't miss a beat.
I don't think this is the future. Yes historically there have been oscillations between having everything local vs having everything on the server and just having a dumb terminal. But we seem to be settling on a half-way point of having apps locally and documents on the server.
Things like cloud compute resources may be added to Grand Central Dispatch type APIs as a special kind of queue, not sure.
Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.
So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?
Is the "iOS" just a misspelling of "OS X" then? Surely Apple wouldn't also make this mistake for the last 6 years.
Touchscreen Chromebooks are essentially a ChromeOS tablet with a keyboard and trackpad, so we're not far away from that, but ChromeOS is targeting less expensive hardware than a Gorilla Glass multitouch screen interface. Running Android on a laptop would be about as natural as the Windows Metro interface on a laptop. Oh. Wait. We've already seen how that sucks.
In some ways, Android, Windows, and Mac can all run ChromeOS in the sense that they can run Chrome, which is 99.9% of ChromeOS.
I agree, Apple made an artificial gap between iOS and OSX to make sure iDevice and Mac who doesn't share the same paradigm (Touch input vs keyboard + mouse) got the right treatment from its developer.
But have a hard time to discern whats Google try to achieve with this poor man apps platform and no desktop likes tablets. ChromeOS is maybe cool idea as a bare minimum secondary OS, but a pretty non-sense at this point to built a premium device for this braindead OS with no killer apps.