Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#41

Post by nimbius »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #39
chasil wrote: post #18

Google should really be forced to unlock the firmware on all of their abandoned devices. I foolishly purchased my parents a "reconditioned" Google Chromebook from Lenovo. The device was covered in black plastic sheets to conceal scratches and markings on the casing. When we activated the device, it was out of support. I gave them a fresh HP Chromebook to replace it. Avoid "reconditioned" Chromebooks.

They are generally unlocked, you can easily get into developer mode and flash a new coreboot bios on most of them: https://mrchromebox.tech/#fwscript Once flashed they can boot right into Linux natively and are a regular old EFI booting laptop. You will never be able to run ChromeOS on it again though (and could perhaps permanently brick or destroy the device) so it's not something Google is going to tell people to d…

yup. this "arent built to last" quip feels like a reinforcement effort from on high to ensure planned obsolescence doesnt encounter any defeat along the way. total malarkey.

I run arch on a couple of chromebooks with wayland. the install path was pretty easy because under the hood these things are just computers. They last as long as you want them to because you decide what they do, not Google.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#42

Post by qbasic_forever »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #31
chasil wrote: post #18

Google should really be forced to unlock the firmware on all of their abandoned devices. I foolishly purchased my parents a "reconditioned" Google Chromebook from Lenovo. The device was covered in black plastic sheets to conceal scratches and markings on the casing. When we activated the device, it was out of support. I gave them a fresh HP Chromebook to replace it. Avoid "reconditioned" Chromebooks.

> Google should really be forced to unlock the firmware on all of their abandoned devices. I'd like that but it appears this software could damage devices if not properly implemented. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35603573 I wonder what's the best way to mitigate these risks.

It's no different than the risk of upgrading your motherboard's bios. If the update fails to finish writing (like if the power goes out during the update) it will leave the firmware in a broken state and won't boot.

Some systems mitigate this risk by giving you two different bios regions so you can write to one and leave the other pristine as an emergency backup if the update fails. Other systems put the bios on a removable chip so if an update fails you can pull it out and rewrite it with dedicated hardware or another working computer.

For inexpensive laptops that are built to the cheapest price possible and where 99% of users will never mess with the bios they don't include those kind of features. So you just have to accept the risk that you could destroy the machine if the update fails, and try to take reasonable precautions like making sure the battery is charged up and it's plugged in while updating the firmware.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#43

Post by Aaron2222 »

chasil wrote: post #18

Google should really be forced to unlock the firmware on all of their abandoned devices. I foolishly purchased my parents a "reconditioned" Google Chromebook from Lenovo. The device was covered in black plastic sheets to conceal scratches and markings on the casing. When we activated the device, it was out of support. I gave them a fresh HP Chromebook to replace it. Avoid "reconditioned" Chromebooks.

The firmware's already open source, and you can reflash it by either opening the device to remove a write-protect screw (for older models) or with a debug cable. https://mrchromebox.tech/ has UEFI firmware for many models, and many also support BIOS boot without needing to remove a write-protect screw or use a debug cable. Also, all support running custom Chromium OS builds via the usual ChromeOS boot mechanism.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#44

Post by makeitdouble »

dazc wrote: post #24

I have two Chromebooks, both over 8 years old. The eldest, an ASUS, I gave to my dad and he uses it everyday. Aside from the odd security issue (he'll install any extension he's told to) it works just as well as it when it was new. The other, a Toshiba, I've dragged around the world with me, has had one repair, a battery replacement, and, again, works fine. Chromebooks are cheap but reliable devices that ought not to…

I think this illustrate pretty well the gap between how adults use their devices and see as "normal" use, and what the same devices go through in the hand of kids using them day in day out and shuffling them around like they do for their books.

My kid also destroyed the plastic around the hinge of an HP chromebook, and there was no way to find replacements part anywhere, locally, Amazon or AliExpress.

That's where it really hurts that there are so many variations and models of chromebooks, as even the most popular ones will be a small fraction of the market and third-party support is just non existent.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#45

Post by augment003 »

smoldesu wrote: post #9
Saris wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be really bad if true, a high end laptop like a Macbook should have support for a long time.

I agree. My 2009 Thinkpad still gets security patches, it would be a shame for premium devices to lose first-party support so soon. Goes to show the importance of an unlocked bootloader, I guess.

It would be really bad if true, but it’s not true as already pointed out.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#47

Post by makeitdouble »

dazc wrote: post #38
carlivar wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have a data point of 2 Chromebooks versus the school I.T. admins in the article that manage thousands, and you think your sample size wins? How about the pointless bezel changes illustrated in the article? Drop your Chromebooks on the floor to crack the bezel, try to replace them, and get back to us for further data in your sample.

Obviously, I'm not a school admin but I would wager replacing a fleet of cheap Chromebooks with Macbooks (or any big brand Windows machines) would not work out cheaper, or less burdensome, or anywhere close.

FTIW iPad in school seem to survive better. There's a lot more limitations (screen size in particular, and keyboards being an accessory), but looking at the number of school working with fleets of them, from a sheer price/durability ratio they're probably doing well.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#49

Post by pjmlp »

Saris wrote: post #13
matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

It's weird to see Google getting picked on for this. Other manufacturers are a lot worse and provide a lot less guarantees about updates.

Yeah most smartphones don't even come close to 4 years. And many other laptops don't get any BIOS/Firmware updates pretty much right after launch.

They should be compared to Laptops, including OS updates.

Re: Design quirks, limited parts, and other ways Chromebooks frustrate repairs

#50

Post by qbasic_forever »

nimbius wrote: post #41
qbasic_forever wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are generally unlocked, you can easily get into developer mode and flash a new coreboot bios on most of them: https://mrchromebox.tech/#fwscript Once flashed they can boot right into Linux natively and are a regular old EFI booting laptop. You will never be able to run ChromeOS on it again though (and could perhaps permanently brick or destroy the device) so it's not something Google is going to tell people to d…

yup. this "arent built to last" quip feels like a reinforcement effort from on high to ensure planned obsolescence doesnt encounter any defeat along the way. total malarkey. I run arch on a couple of chromebooks with wayland. the install path was pretty easy because under the hood these things are just computers. They last as long as you want them to because you decide what they do, not Google.

Yep and Linux usually runs perfectly well on Chromebooks since chrome OS is based on it so you rarely get weird bleeding edge opaque binary driver peripherals. My Acer Chromebook runs Arch too and everything works out of the box--wifi, sound, media buttons, etc. It's way better than getting Linux on a super cheap Windows laptop IMHO.
Post reply on HN