Review: The ARM-powered Samsung Chromebook | Hacker News Reader

Review: The ARM-powered Samsung Chromebook

zdnet.com

36 pointsCrankyBear43 comments

Isn't this:

"It's a reasonably fast, go anywhere, do anything computer [...]"

taking the praise a bit too far? I mean, it's based on an ARM core, and runs Google's own operating system. That means it won't "do" much when it comes to existing applications, at all.

I understand that it's strictly for using the web and maybe other net-based services, but that sentense from the review really sounds as if it isn't.

Can it do anything at all when Google bans your account?

Google banned how many accounts, in total? Do we have any numbers or statistics?

I can't put the threat in context without knowing its prevalence.

I'm not sure how you can tolerate even the possibility of being banned from a computer that you own and payed for.

Relax. This is no Surface. You can create another account or flip the developer switch and install your own OS on it. It should run Ubuntu (for ARM) just fine.

I've read a lot about AdSense account bans. Or do they only ban the account for this service and the rest is left intact?

I think that is a fair criticism. I can't think of another OS where you can't create a local user account without internet access.

Sure, just create a new account (they're free).

I haven't used ChromeOS in a while, but I remember you could use it without a Google account. You won't have access to the Chrome webstore without one, though, but you should be able to use it as a normal browser.

Yes, you can either create a new account, or put it into developer mode and install another OS on it.

The reviewer claim it's not much slower than IE on an average Windows machine. Seems reasonable to me.

"For ports, it comes with one USB 3.0 one USB 2.0 port, and an HDMI port."

I'm seriously considering getting this just to watch video on my TV. The key question for me is whether it supports espn3/watchespn. I see Chrome support listed, but not sure if it only works on x86.

99% of the Webstore apps should work, if that's what you fear. Only the NaCl apps aren't working right now, but a fix should arrive by the end of the year, when they finish implementing PNaCl in Chrome.

That's an interesting question. To date the only way flash works on ARM is through the Android port, and Adobe has abandoned any development on that. It's interesting that the issue hasn't been addressed directly anywhere.

Even if it is supported I wouldn't buy this if consuming flash based content is your major goal. Even on the more directly supported x86 Chromebook I've used flash "works" but only marginally well. It's definitely not a pleasant experience on lower end devices.

if you want those ports, and use it to watch video on a big screen, aren't you better (and cheaper) of running a full customizable OS with XBMC on a small form factor board (think Mini Itx)? And also have the niceness of SABNzbd/Sickbeard/Couch Potato/Headphones, which i doubt Chrome can do.

I love my CR48 but the video is choppy at 480 and above and when dual booting Ubuntu, I only have about 8gig on the SSD. I wonder it it would be possible to upgrade the SSD to a 60gig or so. I have seen them for under $40.

That one is using an Atom CPU and a very old (I believe Imagination) GPU. The Mali T604 GPU inside this chip is brand new, and can easily play 1080p video. It's actually the only mobile GPU in the market that can support a 2560x1600 resolution right now, which we'll see in the soon to be announced Nexus 10.

I've ordered one, at least part in curiousity, because I think the device probably fits a lot better into my work life than a tablet, and I want to see how it actually runs.

It'll probably be too slow, and the battery life won't be quite enough for a full days work, but it's probably got around 30-40% of the functionality of a Macbook air at 25% of the price (for the same weight).

I won't be using it all day every day, but it'll certainly be coming on the next few trips with me.

I still have the CR-48 google shipped out for beta testers a few years back. Its uprising what it can do, considering the low-end hardware its composed of.

For web browsing it is great. And if you do a lot of work from ssh, you'll be fine. With the added RAM and beefed specs, this thing may even be OK at playing video.

The reviews seem to suggest it does pretty well for video playback, the GPU might well be more powerful than the atom one, which wouldn't be hard!

Can it run a useful OS? If so, it's probably worth the $250 flyer to play around.

This is indeed an interesting question and I would be interested in hearing more about this, yet none of the articles I have seen so far said anything about putting something else on it.

Looking at both the Raspberry Pi and my normal laptop, even the standard 16GB SSD should offer more than enough space for a normal Linux install of one of the ARM-compatible distributions. However, it would also be interesting to know whether the SSD can be changed for a bigger one.

Is there any sort of locked bootloader involved in the factory Chromebook?

I'd be thankful for any article pointing me in an appropriate direction.

I've been working on a lot of my projects lately on a prgmr VPS and I just tried out the Chrome SSH app and it's pretty good. I could see and ARM-powered chromebook with 3g being a pretty good hack anywhere kind of laptop with good battery life. Of course, the new iPad with 4g is a bit more with better battery life and could work the same way. In either case, I like the direction things are heading.

The 3G price of this Chromebook ($330) is surprising. I don't think it costs even $50 to add a 3G chip to a device these days, and for that $80 they could've added an LTE chip.

This might surprise you, but this Chromebook uses a battery that is almost 3x smaller than that of the new iPad - 4,000 mAh vs 11,500 mAh. The difference in battery life between the two is not that large, though (6.5h vs 9h), because the iPad has a much higher resolution, and that takes its toll on the battery.

But even then this Chromebook has a surprisingly small battery - as small as a 7" tablet basically. In fact the Nexus 7 has a 4,300 mAh battery. I understand Google needed to push the price to $250, but I find it hard to believe they couldn't at least push it to 10h with a slightly bigger battery. Are batteries really that expensive?

Keep in mind the 3G model comes with 100MB/mo data for 2 years; you're paying for the service too. I'd theorize that not being LTE is a way of keeping that bundled service as cheap as possible.

That makes a bit of sense if they included the cost, but the whole idea doesn't. Why would I pay an extra $80 on a $250 device, just to get 100 MB's of data per month? If I was really looking for 100% Internet connectivity wherever I am, and I'd need a 3G/4G chip inside, I'd probably want a 5 GB data plan to go with it.

But 100MB of data is about perfect for emergency use. If you're like most people, 99% of the time you are somewhere with WIFI, but it's the 1% that you aren't when you really need it. Combine the 100MB a month with a very occasional $10 day pass and most people would be covered.

Surely current*time is the wrong thing to look at when comparing batteries across different devices? It doesn't tell you anything without also knowing the voltages. I'd bet that the CB has a similar sized or larger battery in a more appropriate unit (e.g. watt-hours).

Apple has set expectations that adding 3G costs $130.

Considering this Chromebook only uses a dual core 1.7 Ghz Cortex A15 CPU, I found this very interesting:

"On the other hand, its score makes it only a little slower than IE 9 on Windows 7 SP1 on a Gateway DX4710. This PC is powered by a 2.5-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor and has 6GBs of RAM and an Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100. In short, the ARM Chromebook does a lot more with a lot less hardware than a stock Windows PC does."

The "newest" Core 2 Quad is nearly 5 years old. A quick google search reveals that computer uses a Q6600 which is nearly 6 years old:

http://www.techspot.com/review/36-intel-core2-quad-q6600/pag...

That's a pretty irresponsible omission by the author. It's about as bad as his claim that ChromeOS is based on "Ubuntu Linux".

But how is that relevant? The point was that a Core 2 Quad is much more powerful than that ARM CPU, and yet ChromeOS runs as fast on the ARM CPU, as Windows 7 on that much faster CPU.

I haven't read the article but I think it's important to point out that the comparison is between IE and Chrome not Windows 7 and Chrome. Put another way, if I had an OS specifically built to run a mail application. Then, regardless of hardware, it wouldn't surprise me that my mail application ran faster on that OS then on Windows 7, OS X, etc.

Even then, a 1.7 Ghz dual-core Cortex-A15 is not even close to be 'only a little slower' than a five year old 2.5 Ghz Core 2 quad. With a bit of luck it's going to be a little faster than a 1.6 Ghz dual-core Atom.

The whole 'review' reads like a paid advertisement, it's a shame crap like this ends up on the HN front-page. The guy is basically saying you get a Chrome browser for $249, as if that's a good thing. Because "it's the future, it's going to revolutionize computing". He doesn't mention using the thing for any other kind of application except internet browsing, then concludes with the following brilliant quote:

>> This Chromebook represents the true future of the PC. It's cheaper than any device that's remotely comparable to it be it tablet, laptop or any of the hybrids. It depends not on the local computer but on network services to get things done. Today, that motto has been made reality in my hands by Google and Samsung with the ARM Chromebook. This really does change everything.

Give me a break... :-/

> The guy is basically saying you get a Chrome browser for $249, as if that's a good thing.

I think it's a good thing, and I bought one. I was lucky enough to receive a CR-48 which completely changed my opinion on a chrome-only computer. I also own an older iPad and HP Touchpad (running ICS) yet both of them are sitting on my desk with drained batteries. For some reason I found myself reaching for the CR48 when on the couch or traveling. Yes, tablets were fun for gaming on planes but other than that I preferred the full browser experience w/ a keyboard. I use it for browsing, email, and basic dev work using ShiftEdit and occasionally Chrome Remote Desktop. I'm not saying it's superior - some people prefer different devices.

Just out of curiosity: how do you use it while traveling? Without network connectivity the thing is basically unusable right?

Just looking at 2-year 3G plans with at least 1GB data limit and no bandwidth restrictions, the value proposition of a Chromebook is not so great anymore. For the price of the 3G plan alone I could almost buy a new MacBook Air.

I can only think of one instance in two years I've owned it when I needed to get online but didn't have internet access. I used offline gmail to respond to a few emails so not a big deal.

The CR48 has built in 3G but I decided against buying the $330 one and paying for a plan and will instead use my phone to tether when needed. I use FoxFi for free tethering and it's worked surprisingly well. I don't travel often - and wifi + occasional tethering is good enough for me.

> Without network connectivity the thing is basically unusable right?

nope. you can use html5 "offline" apps http://diveintohtml5.info/offline.html

Still, it goes to show that we've had "enough" computing power to do serious web apps for a long time now.

The next step is to make everything smaller, lighter, and more portable... More power is largely irrelevant for 98% of the world.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/10/the-pc-is-over.html

Indeed, I've been completely happy with more-or-less the same processing power in the computers I've used as my main workstation for the past four years. Now that computers are "fast enough", the differentiating features are things like battery life, portability, and ergonomics.

This Chromebook would be very interesting if they had put a bit bigger battery into it. But even now it might be more suitable more my use cases than the MBA I'm typing this on.

>That's a pretty irresponsible omission by the author. It's about as bad as his claim that ChromeOS is based on "Ubuntu Linux".

The author states the _interface_ is based on Ubuntu Linux.

He obviously hasn't used Ubuntu much.

It is based on Ubuntu, just very loosely

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/ubuntu_chrome_os_con...

"Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract" doesn't necessarily equal "Chrome OS is based on Ubuntu". In fact, CrOS uses Portage[0] as a package manager, so if there (still) is any Ubuntu connection, I'd imagine it's extremely weak.

[0] http://dev.chromium.org/chromium-os/packages/portage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com