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

221–230 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#221

Post by mcantelon »

GFischer wrote: post #150
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…

Indeed.. Why would I buy this instead of, for example, a MUCH cheaper Android set top? (as in, four times cheaper). Does it do anything different? I'm in tech and I don't know anything about Chrome OS, and I wouldn't buy even if I had disposable income (and I do want a media player/home theater PC someday). Heck, I could probably buy an equivalent Windows-based HTPC for a similar price. See http://s.dealextreme.com/s…

DealExtreme is kind of a crapshoot, quality-wise, IIRC... and this should have a larger community of English speaking users, in terms of community support.

Re: Chromebox

#222

Post by huggyface »

jeffool wrote: post #103
gojomo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still early (in the life of this device). Early adopters will be techies. It's OK to be geeky at this stage. They can dumb-it-down later.

But the complaint (and a legit one I feel) is that this page is the opposite. This page has very little information that techies want (as seen by all the complaining here.)

Are we reading the same complaint, or is this more a catch-all of complaints? The root of this thread says-

Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be better with it.

Those are not details that techies want. It is clearly extolling the mythical Apple advertising (the one where they aren't talking about quad core GPUs and retina displays and 5MP "iSight" cameras) that, supposedly, is lifestyle focused.

Re: Chromebox

#223

Post by VikingCoder »

genwin wrote: post #201
jyap wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's marketing. The emphasis is on the simplicity of the product. That being said, it's a 1.9ghz Celeron CPU. That can give negative connotations since Celeron is Intel's cheap line of processors.

Good to know. I just got a quad-core desktop for US$377. The Chromebox w/ Celeron would have to print gold to compare to that.

I'd be curious to compare your time from power off, to viewing a web page.

They're very different machines, with very different goals. If you compare the components, then yes, it probably doesn't make any sense for you to get a Chromebox. If you look at the features they both have, then it might make more sense.

If I were buying a machine for my grandmother, I'd buy the Chromebox over your $377 desktop, in a heartbeat.

Re: Chromebox

#224

Post by mcantelon »

jyap wrote: post #80
cooldeal wrote: post #29

Looks like there's major spin on this on that page. Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies. Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD. The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issue…

Yes, there is a noticeable pro-Google bias on Hacker News. Links that show Google in a negative light are instantly backed up by Google employees. This comment will probably get down voted. I seriously don't care about votes and don't know how the system works and get annoyed when people complain about down votes (like it actually matters).

The top comment starts "This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed" which doesn't seem to indicate an HN pro-Google bias.

Re: Chromebox

#225

Post by tomflack »

metatronscube wrote: post #198
tomflack wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being slow because it is underpowered is different to what I'm referring to - becoming slower over time because web technologies move past the capabilities of the hardware.

Well its creaking at the seams right now, I think given the progression of web technologies (even if they begin to use more hardware acceleration) it is going to become much slower over time as more intensive tasks are offloaded to the Hardware, its not an good indication at the moment that after a UI update its noticeably slower (at least for me) and a lot buggier.

The quote I was referencing is of course talking about the new hardware, not the old hardware you are referring to.

It just strikes me that 'never' is a long time.

Re: Chromebox

#226

Post by mcantelon »

smellypantsman wrote: post #131

This is absolutely perfect for my business' use case: 4 customer support advisers who currently use Win7 with just browsers open to our custom built web app. This will be so much cheaper and less maintenance. Only downside is that while it supports 2 screens currently (I'm hoping an update fixes this real soon) it can ridiculously only show the same thing on both screens! No extended desktop. I was first to buy one a…

>it can ridiculously only show the same thing on both screens!

Well, that pretty much kills it for me right that. That and the privacy implication of the Chome* line in general.

Re: Chromebox

#227

Post by firefoxman1 »

What a non-description it starts out with:

> "The Chromebox is a fast, compact home or office device."

So...it's a computer. Why call it a "home or office device"?

Re: Chromebox

#228

Post by tbundy »

koide wrote: post #215
GFischer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I see two main targets: Grandmas (sorry to stereotype the tech savvy grandmas out there) or rather tech savvy sons of grandmas which want something that just works for their mothers and that automatically backs things up for them. And enterprises who want to kick Microsoft prices in the nuts.

I see the Grandma use case, but it's so niche I can't see that being viable. As for enterprise, you'd have to have a pretty "progressive" company... and one that would be very sure that you'll never need a desktop app. Again, I would think very small numbers.

I realise Chrome OS is somewhat still a market experiment, but I think it would've gone a lot further at a better price point. For ~$200 I would put one in my living room for checking the web & controlling my home web apps. I see that as the perfect way to get people familiar with it (thinking of it more like a tablet, a limited utility), then once NaCl goes mainstream, you have a who market who's ready to start replacing their other PCs.

Re: Chromebox

#229

Post by fratis »

loceng wrote: post #212
randomdrake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, af…

http://www.apple.com/ vs http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ vs https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebox.html I'd say Google's doing a better job.

Not sure how that's obvious from your links. It'd be helpful if you gave some explanation.

Re: Chromebox

#230

Post by Zr40 »

bane wrote: post #172
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…

I disagree (mostly). Technical specs do tell you what a device is capable of. However, putting the specs up front and not under the specs tab (which is strangely almost empty) is poor. The overview should be pushed up to the top and expanded upon a la Apple's products pages. Even with all the specs, there's one I care about that's not on here, how much can I store on the device? All the USB ports aren't doing me any…

No, technical specs tell you what a device might be capable of. Only the software defines what computer-like devices can actually do.
Post reply on HN