Live data from Hacker News

$600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 426 posts

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#41
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, Windows RT

I thought RT was just an ARM port, not a rewrite?

Well, it's both I guess, it's designed to only run WinRT Store apps, not Win32 (Although Win32 is somewhat ported as Office runs on it), but that's the general idea, to break with the past. But the only reason people use Windows is The Past

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#42

Dependence on Windows is the most dangerous development for Microsoft. An 8GB RAM Windows Surface Go is less performant than an iPad with 2GB of RAM for consumers. For the server, I recently had to write a process that takes messages from a queue in AWS and store it to a database. It ran well as a .Net Core based lambda running on a 256MB RAM Linux VM. I did the same with a .Net Framesork app that inherited and the s…

I think this is entirely due to backwards compatibility.

Are you suggesting that Windows requires about 3700 additional MB of RAM to be backwards compatible with Windows versions that ran on devices with 32MB RAM?

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#43
post #5

I was an intern at Microsoft the day that ChromeOS was announced. Conveniently, a few days later the head of Windows was giving a talk to all the interns. Overall, spoke well, but during Q&A someone asked him what he thought about ChromeOS. He laughed. He said it was a joke. He made it very clear that he didn't understand what Google was even thinking. And that stuck such a sour chord on me. Here's a company well kno…

If it wasn't for Office and the ecosystem around it, I don't think many firms would opt for Microsoft products. In my firm, we're purely Linux, but have Windows VMs, just for Excel.

As an aside, we run a business management app called Bx (https://usebx.com/app) and have recently started making some money. We're putting aside some cash to fund the development of a feature-rich, cross-platform spreadsheet app (I wished OpenOffice Calc would suffice, but it simply doesn't, and is unstable at times), so that we can finally ditch the Windows VMs we run!

Something about Microsoft's historical ethos makes me abhor development on their platform, and targeting their browser is a nightmare in its own right (with Safari a close second).

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when the Web was irrelevant. Bill Gates and patent troll Nathan Myrvhold wrote a while book unironically displaying their utter lack of vision about the industry. Their while business is a mix of making bland weak copies of more popular software to run on their decades old Windows entrenchment, Xbox, and a few nice keyboard and mice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_b...

I read an old magazine article a few weeks ago where Bill Gates was talking about how the internet isn't necessary outside of businesses. That having a computer use a phone line to dial up to a central server once or twice a day is all anyone needs. This was back when 2400 baud was considered super fast. Steve Jobs may have had some bad qualities (many of them irrationally amplified in the "Jobs-bad-Woz-good" revisio…

What revisionist history?

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#45

Dependence on Windows is the most dangerous development for Microsoft. An 8GB RAM Windows Surface Go is less performant than an iPad with 2GB of RAM for consumers. For the server, I recently had to write a process that takes messages from a queue in AWS and store it to a database. It ran well as a .Net Core based lambda running on a 256MB RAM Linux VM. I did the same with a .Net Framesork app that inherited and the s…

I think this is entirely due to backwards compatibility.

Except wine can now run more windows program then any version bof windows.

Wine better at windows than windows itself.

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#46
post #4

Chromebooks have one fatal flaw: Microsoft Office on them sucks. You're stuck with side-loading in the Android edition, which is an app with a simplified UI and requiring always-online connection. All of this might be OK for a schoolkid, but for anyone else you might as well stick with a Windows laptop for real work, or an iPad for real consumption.

Chromebooks aren't intended to be all things to all people. They're really a way to provide a browser and little else to people who don't need much other than that. I wouldn't think it's appropriate for someone doing a lot of Microsoft documents, but for someone who ocassiaonally needs to write something nice or crunch a spreadsheet Google docs is an option, and newish chromebooks have access to the Android Google play store, are the Microsoft office apps specifically delisted? If you deal with documents only a few times a year, you can probably make it work.

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#47

Dependence on Windows is the most dangerous development for Microsoft. An 8GB RAM Windows Surface Go is less performant than an iPad with 2GB of RAM for consumers. For the server, I recently had to write a process that takes messages from a queue in AWS and store it to a database. It ran well as a .Net Core based lambda running on a 256MB RAM Linux VM. I did the same with a .Net Framesork app that inherited and the s…

Isn't there another quote from Bill Gates on not optimizing Windows because why pay for his engineers to makes things faster/smaller/efficient when RAM/CPU/HDD were outpacing by getting faster/larger/cheaper. Or is that an urban legend type of quote?

It makes sense business wise. Getting new features is sexy/sell-able. Refactoring existing/working code to be smaller/faster/secure/etc isn't.

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#48
post #4

Chromebooks have one fatal flaw: Microsoft Office on them sucks. You're stuck with side-loading in the Android edition, which is an app with a simplified UI and requiring always-online connection. All of this might be OK for a schoolkid, but for anyone else you might as well stick with a Windows laptop for real work, or an iPad for real consumption.

LOL I agree it's a great short-term strategic move from Microsoft to make sure Android Office is a piece of trash. I can't believe how awful it is every time I need to use it, it can't even properly keep track of what text is highlighted when you make font changes.

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#49

Dependence on Windows is the most dangerous development for Microsoft. An 8GB RAM Windows Surface Go is less performant than an iPad with 2GB of RAM for consumers. For the server, I recently had to write a process that takes messages from a queue in AWS and store it to a database. It ran well as a .Net Core based lambda running on a 256MB RAM Linux VM. I did the same with a .Net Framesork app that inherited and the s…

I think this is entirely due to backwards compatibility.

I think this is entirely due to backwards compatibility.

That's the current conventional wisdom. But it's more like an excuse.

Windows got bloated because Microsoft relied(s) on cheap masses of mediocre programmers, backed by equally mediocre managers. A pattern that Windows application developers copied.

Yes, Microsoft has some really talented people. I knew a good number of them from the Bing and Xbox group when I lived in Bellevue. They would talk about amazing things. But then they would always follow those tales with internal Microsoft horror stories.

Re: $600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft

#50
post #17

I never really understood why MSFT didn't start a clean slate rewrite of Windows about a decade ago. Imagine how much simpler and more reliable it could be, and you could run Windows 7 in an emulation layer if you had older apps you depended on. Even OS X has the feel that cloud services are kind of bolted on, whereas a new OS written in this era could feel more like ChromeOS in terms of reliability but still include…

They did, Windows RT

That wasn’t a ground up rewrite, that was just the normal windows running on a different processor. They limited features so that it would be in its own market segment… But it was not a completely new OS.
Post reply on HN