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

Chromebox

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#161

Post by ticks »

chmike wrote: post #89
platinum1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... Is that better? edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos) http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.ht... http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-device...…

> Intel Core Processor Why not specifying what processor and hardware is in the box ?

It's easier to switch parts if you don't specify them.

Re: Chromebox

#162

Post by GFischer »

koide wrote: post #59
tbundy wrote: post #4

Looks fun, but $329 isn't throw-away money. Given that I don't need another computer, the price just isn't cheap enough to say "yeh, why not:.

You are likely not the target

Who is? (honest question). I don't get the target from the page.

Re: Chromebox

#163

Post by randomdrake »

platinum1 wrote: post #76
i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... Is that better? edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos) http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.ht... http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-device...…

edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos)

When I search Google for chromebox the first result is the link that was submitted. I concur: it is a terrible landing page for a product. Consider the first page results for things like macbook, ipad, or mac mini and you can see where the failure lies. They do, after all, have control of search results, don't they?

Re: Chromebox

#164

Post by [deleted] »

llgrrl_ wrote: post #7

It'll be a very capable PC or thin client if that's at all possible. I wonder how feasible it is to put a Linux distribution here and get it working. I know it is possible with the Chromebook, and if it's gonna work for the Chromebox, then shut up and take my money.

[deleted]

Re: Chromebox

#165

Post by maguay »

mda wrote: post #43
maguay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afraid a Celeron isn't very competitive with an i5, even at the same speed. At least not comparing to similarly clocked computers running here. A dual-core Celeron based PC here is significantly slower than a similarly clocked i5 Mac Mini.

They are both based on same sandybridge architecture, i5-2415M has 3MB L2 versus celeron B840's 2MB. i5 also has 4 threads. So Clock frequency IS the main differentiator here, 1.9Ghz vs 2.3-2.9Ghz (with turbo), which probably corresponds to 30% to 60% difference in general. Specs of both processors: Celeron B840: http://ark.intel.com/products/59801/Intel-Celeron-Processor-... i5-2415M: http://ark.intel.com/products/5…

Oh interesting. The desktop I was referring to has a 4 year old Celeron at 1.9Ghz, so possibly its older architecture makes it more different, but not sure.

Re: Chromebox

#166

Post by dubya »

hollerith wrote: post #159
Juha wrote: post #132

There is a second version (XE300M22-A02US) with Core i5 processor and 499$ pricetag: http://www.chromestory.com/2012/05/two-chromeboxes-second-49...

Advantages this version of the Chromebox has over the base-model Mac mini: slightly faster Core i5; more USB ports (6 versus 4); more DisplayPorts (2 versus 1); comes with more RAM (4 gigs versus 2 gigs); $69 cheaper (using the Chromebox's list price versus Amazon's current price for the Mac mini). Advantages the mini has over the Chromebox: memory upgradable to 16 gigs (Apple says 8 gigs, but others report that 16 g…

The Chromebox apparently uses a verified boot, so no Linux unless you can replace the bios. It's a shame since a small footprint, low-power, turnkey Linux box would be just the thing for a number of applications, though the Chromebox lacks a way to add fast storage.

Re: Chromebox

#167

Post by Schlaefer »

withad wrote: post #147
aristidb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Apple shows that showing specs is not necessary: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ If specs help sell the things, by all means Google should include them. Whether they are "relevant" or not. Also note that the info that it is _not_ an Intel Atom CPU is highly relevant IMO, because the Atom is slow as molasses.

But Apple's page doesn't give nearly as much focus to the tech specs as Google's does. Most of the page "above the fold" is given over to a description of what it can do and the details they do give are more about relative improvements (2x faster, etc.) than raw numbers. The specs are available and it's clear where to see them but they're not the first thing the eye is drawn to.

This https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html is equivalent to that: http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html

This http://www.apple.com/mac/ is equivalent to https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/

You have to click "Explore", then the "Devices" tab and then on the Chromebox image. Or you have specifically click "Chromebox" in the top-menu.

Using a deeplink and complaining it provides no general information about the whole ecosystem is imho a little bit silly.

Let's talk about the base url: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ that's bad. It should have its own domain.

Re: Chromebox

#168

Post by bizodo »

How long until ur phone becomes a chromebox esque device that u can just plug into any screen or better yet wirelessly connect to any screen.

Re: Chromebox

#169

Post by andrewfelix »

aristidb wrote: post #140
i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

Yes, Apple shows that showing specs is not necessary: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ If specs help sell the things, by all means Google should include them. Whether they are "relevant" or not. Also note that the info that it is _not_ an Intel Atom CPU is highly relevant IMO, because the Atom is slow as molasses.

Good spotting. But I think Apple's desktop OS is already quite familiar to most people. Chromebox is offering quite a radically different experience that needs to be communicated.

I really would like to know 'what' a Chromebox does as opposed to 'how' it does it. Whereas with a Mac product I'm more interested in the 'how'.

Re: Chromebox

#170

Post by bane »

withad wrote: post #147
aristidb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Apple shows that showing specs is not necessary: http://www.apple.com/macmini/ If specs help sell the things, by all means Google should include them. Whether they are "relevant" or not. Also note that the info that it is _not_ an Intel Atom CPU is highly relevant IMO, because the Atom is slow as molasses.

But Apple's page doesn't give nearly as much focus to the tech specs as Google's does. Most of the page "above the fold" is given over to a description of what it can do and the details they do give are more about relative improvements (2x faster, etc.) than raw numbers. The specs are available and it's clear where to see them but they're not the first thing the eye is drawn to.

Apple spends time on different kinda of specifications.

Instead of listing how much it can compute, they talk about how big it is (x inches by y inches by z inches), relative speed improvements (which aren't useful since the consumer may have no idea how slow or fast the prior one is), lots of specs around the price (price is a specification), what kind of I/O it has (thunderbolt), the processor (just not the Ghz), the graphics part (just not which model, but strangely they list the CPU speed over there -- and of course it's the rated speed for the more expensive model) then some generic statements about which Apple software you can run on it.

But because some people still want to have an idea of what it can compute they still offer

http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html

I'm not particularly interested in either device, but it's clear that Google's sales page is almost a copy of Apples page.

Post reply on HN