Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

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."

View on HN

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